Prosecutors move to seize 40-foot catamaran. TRANSCRIPT: 9/18/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

John Garamendi, Maura Healey

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  All right.  Michelle Goldberg, and Dave Weigel –

thank you both for being with me. 


That is ALL IN this evening. 


“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. 


Good evening, Rachel. 


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Chris, I promise that in all of the time that

you and I share adjacent shows on this TV network, we will never have a

crossover like the one you just played from Fox. 


HAYES:  My God.  My God. 




The thing – the thing – I mean, I think I`d heard something about that. 

I heard it existed. 


HAYES:  I could talk about this for an hour, not 30 seconds. 


MADDOW:  But you nailed the thing that was scariest about it was the

distance between the facial expressions and the conversation.  I mean, that

was like hide under a table this is a scary family fight. 


HAYES:  That`s exactly what it was.  It had real family fight vibes to it. 


MADDOW:  Anyway. 


HAYES:  I hope everyone is making up and making amends. 


MADDOW:  Yes.  I want the best for everybody if only because I feel afraid

by proxy. 


HAYES:  My strong feeling, too. 


MADDOW:  Thank you, my friend.  I appreciate it.  Eek. 


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


So, I have congratulations to offer.  Congratulations, you guys.  We are

getting a new boat. 


Not right away.  We have to wait and see if, in fact, there is a

conviction.  But if there is, look at what we are getting.  Now when I

first read this in the indictment I thought, oh, we`re getting a little

sailboat thingy.  It said it`s a catamaran that we`re getting and then it

gave a whole number, I figured that meant like a little training sailing



Full disclosure, that misconception on my part might be because I know

nothing about boats.  I do own a canoe, but I still don`t even understand

how to control that.  If I tried to do it myself, I would go around in

circles.  The only way I can operate is if Susan wants to paddle me around

in which case I catch gigantic fish like that. 


I don`t even try to drive the canoe.  I can`t.  So, like grain of salt

here, I don`t get boats. 


But I`m reading through this part of the indictment and it describes that

we, the American taxpayers, are about to get a catamaran.  And so, to me,

no boat concepts, that seems no big deal. 


But then you look the thing up by the hull number that is in the

indictment, the catamaran hull number and it turns out it`s not just some

little training sailboat.  It`s a 40-foot-long catamaran.  And it`s

basically a big speedboat thingy. 


And it is really, really – do we have a picture?  There, thank you very



This is it.  This is a 40-foot catamaran.  It`s this gigantic, plush

speedboat thingy.  This is what we are getting.  Which is very nice, right? 

Congratulations are in order.  We`re getting one of these.  It`s a 2018,

brand-new.  Nice brand. 


We`re also getting a 2018 Ford F-150, also a trail they`re goes with it. 

And I think we`re also going to get these two items from Caterpillar.  This

is the first one. 


I don`t think of these things as the sort of thing people bring home for

personal use, but how fun would this be?  This one, a model just like this

is described in the indictment as a tractor.  But when you look it up based

on the model number in the indictment, I think more specifically, it`s what

Caterpillar calls a small dozer, which would be fun.  Imagine tooling

around on that on your back lawn. 


Also, we`re getting one of these.  It`s a model 320 medium sized

Caterpillar hydraulic excavator.  Not the blue thing, the yellow thing.


We, the American taxpayers, are getting one of these to play with, plus

about $5 million in cash.  Because if it turns out you were only able to

obtain all that cash and all of those things, that surprisingly large boat

and the small dozer and all the rest of it – if you were only able to get

all of those great things because of your crimes, specifically in this case

because of your bribery of the main official charged by the Trump

administration with overseeing the rebuilding of Puerto Rico`s

infrastructure and power grid after Hurricane Maria, well, then if you are,

in fact, convicted of those crimes for which you are now accused, you will

have to give up the fruits of those crimes. 


You will have to give up the loot, the cash, right?  You`ll also have to

give up the amazing medium sized hydraulic excavator and the very fast 40-

foot long catamaran and the boat and the trailer and the truck and all the

rest of it. 


In any other presidential administration, after 3,000 Americans were killed

in a catastrophic hurricane and a botched federal disaster response

thereafter, it would be the scandal of the year.  It would be a presidency

defining, if not presidency-ending scandal, if the top person who the

federal government put in charge of infrastructure rebuilding after that

hurricane got arrested and charged with ten felonies for allegedly taking

bribes from the contractor who got huge contracts to do that work.  Oh, and

by the way, the work still isn`t done and it`s still an ongoing disaster. 


The contractor himself was charged with eight felony counts.  He will have

to hand over his surprisingly fast boat and the bulldozer and the truck and

the cash and all the rest.  In addition to him, a FEMA deputy chief of

staff charged with three felony accounts for allegedly setting herself up

with a private sector job while working on FEMA contracts for the company

she was getting to hire her at something roughly approaching triple her

FEMA salary and, of course, there`s the deputy regional administrator in

FEMA – for FEMA in Puerto Rico, who was designated the sector lead there

for power and infrastructure following the Hurricane Maria disaster. 


Do you remember why all those people died after the hurricane had blown

through?  Right?  With no power, including no power to the hospitals and

all the rest of it? 


That Trump administration official is now facing ten felony charges,

bribery, conspiracy, honest services, wire fraud.  In terms of this ongoing

disaster, you may remember how some of this shook out, you might remember

that the first contractor who got a gigantic, inexplicable FEMA contract

from the Trump administration to rebuild the power grid in Puerto Rico,

this thing on which – you know, thousands of people`s lives were hinging,

the first contractor who got that huge contract from FEMA to rebuild Puerto

Rico`s grid was a mysterious, previously unheard of contractor from Montana

who seemed to have links to the Trump administration maybe. 


It was a firm that appeared to have basically no employees.  They had two

full-time employees.  They were based on a Suburban truck house.  And after

lots of controversy over who they were and how they got this very, very

important and remunerative gig, they ultimately lost the gig when they

couldn`t explain, among other things, why they were planning to charge the

U.S. taxpayers an hourly rate for all the linemen who would be working on

electrical lines in Puerto Rico, they`d be charging an hourly rate for

those linemen of $300 per hour, per lineman. 


And so, that contract fell apart in scandal.  That was the first contract

they gave out after Hurricane Maria to set up the grid.  That one – then

they brought this other contractor onboard. 


Through FEMA, this other contractor called Cobra, they were going to get

paid $1.8 billion as the plan B second choice contractor to rebuild Puerto

Rico`s electrical grid.  They ended up getting paid $1.1 billion before

their contract, too, was canceled because of mysterious irregularities

discovered only after $1.1 billion had already been dispersed to them. 


Those irregularities are less mysterious now that we can see this litany of

bribery charges laid out in black and white in this federal indictment. 


So, this has been a disastrously managed manmade catastrophe from beginning

to end and it continues.  And the people of Puerto Rico have paid and are

paying the human price for it.  And now, we`ve got these three arrests and

depending on how the prosecutions turn out we, the American people, may not

only see some people in jail for these alleged crimes, we may get ourselves

a new boat and some other new stuff, too, by virtue of the forfeiture

section of this bombshell indictment. 


But it turns out that this is a story that just keeps getting more

astonishing by the day.  You probably heard about this indictment already,

right?  Well, get this. 


So, the high-ranking FEMA official who was just arrested, turns out she had

a deputy at her position for FEMA in Puerto Rico.  She was the Trump

administration`s sector lead for power and infrastructure in Puerto Rico. 

Her number two was the deputy sector lead for power and infrastructure in

Puerto Rico. 


What`s his background?  As first reported by CBS News, it turns out that

he, too, the deputy, has recently been arrested in a totally different

giant U.S. government bribery scandal.  He was a Navy officer who was

suspended from his Navy command over his alleged involvement in the Fat

Leonard scandal which we`ve covered quite a bit on the show. 


The biggest Navy bribery scandal ever.  It`s this big, sprawling, lurid

scandal involving lots of money and lots of classified information and lots

of hookers and lots of really expensive meals at terrible sounding



This guy was suspended from his Navy command because of his alleged

involvement in the Fat Leonard bribery scandal in the Navy.  Nevertheless

when the Trump administration took office in 2017, they decided that that`s

the guy they would hire to the senior role at FEMA. 


Now, did they ask the military why it guy had been suspended from his navy

command by any chance before they hired him?  I don`t know.  But any

mystery around that part of the guy`s past would have been cleared up this

past year in August when he was indicted by a federal grand jury for his

alleged involvement in that Navy bribery scheme.  He was arrested



So, think about this for a second.  The number one person who the Trump

administration assigned to oversee restoration of power in Puerto Rico, the

restoration of the power grid in Puerto Rico, that person has now been

arrested on ten felony counts for bribery. 


Her deputy on the job has also been arrested and indicted on multiple

federal counts for alleged bribery.  But in his case, it`s a whole

different bribery scheme.  I mean, they must have gotten along so well at

the office, right? 


Secret Santa, and their corner at FEMA headquarters must have been like –

oh, look, you got me a ski mask.  Is that a fingerprint removal kit?  Oh,

my God.  Who wants the fake ID for opening Swiss bank accounts?  I`ll trade

you that for the lock picks. 


I mean, what was going on?  How do you end up with – if you were aiming at

hiring multiple felony bribery indicted – I mean, the – and the – but

don`t worry.  The Trump administration has decided to shake things up and

get control over there. 


Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced President Trump`s new

nominee to be the new head of FEMA.  Now they announced him in February. 

They formally announced him a couple months later.  It`s been six months

since they announced that he`s a Trump administration pick.  Six months,

whatever happened to that nomination.


Well, in recent days, there have been these, sort of, vague, slippery

reports that there might be something going wrong with this nomination. 

“Politico” reporting recently that there was something personal, there was

a personal issue in the nominee`s background that was tripping up his

nomination process.  Nobody was willing to say what the personal issue was

or why it didn`t surface when he went through his confirmation hearing and

was cleared by committee, why it might only be surfacing as his nomination

should have been heading to the floor for a final Senate vote. 


It was later reported the personal issue might have had something to do

with an altercation.  OK.  But still no specifics on that. 


Given the Republican controlled Senate`s willingness to confirm basically

anybody from the Trump administration for any purpose, the holdup with this

guy started to seem a little worrying.  I mean, think about all the people

they`ve let through, right?  We don`t know what`s holding this guy up, but

it is holding him up.


Now, it emerges from reporting done by NBC News investigative producer

Laura Strickler that this guy who Trump has nominated to be the new head of

FEMA, whatever his personal issues may be, whatever the altercation was, I

don`t know, whatever else is going on with him, turns out he was the person

at FEMA headquarters who was personally, individually the point of contact

at FEMA headquarters in D.C. for the official who just got arrested on ten

felony counts for bribery. 


She is charged with alleged crimes that started right after Hurricane

Maria, in October 2017.  According to the indictment her alleged crimes

started in October 2017 and continued through April of this year, April



We have obtained an April 2019 FEMA org chart.  And as you can see, here

right in the center, here is deputy regional administrator for the

Caribbean area, as it says at the top of the chart there.  That`s the

person who just got charged with ten felony counts for bribery.  And as you

can see, there is one line that shows where she connects to FEMA

headquarters.  So, the line that goes to the right out of her little box

and there`s one guy`s name in that box that she connects to and that is the

guy Trump nominated to be the new head of FEMA. 


According to a statement FEMA gave us tonight, quote: The dotted line on

this organization at chart represents a coordinating relationship. 


OK.  I mean, separate and apart from whatever the personal issue with this

nominee to run FEMA and whatever the altercation may have been with this

guy if there was one.  I mean, but they have to give the guy a redo

confirmation hearing at this point? 


So, Mr. Byard, tell us more about the billion dollar federal bribery scheme

in region two?  Did they coordinate that with you?  How were your other

regions?  Did you know the person just arrested in the bribery scheme had a

deputy recently arrested in another gigantic bribery scheme involving the

U.S. government?  Was that a problem in the office?  Was that a red flag at

all?  And you`re going to run the whole agency now. 


Well, apparently, we can now report that Mr. Byard does not want a redo

confirmation hearing.  There has just been reporting in the last hour from

several outlets that the White House is pulling this new nomination to run

FEMA, including from “The New York Times” which reports that the issue was

a, quote, barroom altercation. 


We can report exclusively here tonight that Jeff Byard actually sent a

letter to the acting director of homeland security last Thursday, formally

requesting his nomination be withdrawn or at least we can tell you about

the existence of a letter written to the acting director of homeland

security that is dated last Thursday.  I don`t know when it was written but

it is dated September 12th. 


Here is the letter.  I think this is exclusive, the first anybody has seen

this letter as far as we are aware.  Quote: Secretary McAleenan, sir,

please accept this as my formal request to withdraw my nomination to serve

as administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  I feel like

it would be best for me entirely on pressing issues related to my current

rule as the associate administrator for response and recovery.


So that is that apparently.  I should tell you that we have been

communicating with FEMA about the Byard nomination for several days, and

we`ve had a lot of back and forth with them about the official who was

arrested, her deputy who was also arrested on different bribery charges, on

Byard`s role as the person at FEMA headquarters who had a coordinating

relationship with her, the only person on the org chart who was connected

from FEMA administrators directly to her office. 


We`ve been talking about that for a couple days now and a lot today.  And I

just want to tell you in the interest of full transparency, they called us

literally five minutes before show time tonight to tell us that actually

Jeff Byard had withdrawn his nomination last Thursday.  They didn`t mention

his withdrawn – we`re asking about Byard for days.  They didn`t say

anything about his nomination being withdrawn.  Five minutes before show

time today they said, oh, yeah he`s been gone for a week. 


Make of that what you will.  The letter they gave us tonight is dated last

week.  It is dated September 12th. 


Tonight, “Axios” reports that although Jeff Byard`s nomination was not

formally withdrawn, President Trump had a new guy in mind already.  I`m

sure he`ll be great if that is, in fact, the new pick.  I`m sure he`ll be

great.  And I`m sure he`s been carefully vetted, otherwise they wouldn`t

put his name out there. 


And at one level, this is just another on the pile of Trump related

criminal indictments, right, since he has been president.  At another

level, it is the umpteenth sequel in the ongoing career-destroying, soul-

sucking horror movie that is the Trump administration`s either refusal or

complete inability to vet people for senior jobs or even not so senior jobs

in the U.S. government.  On yet another level, this is a fairly keen

insight into just how well the Trump administration has taken care of the

people of Puerto Rico.  Especially in the aftermath of the natural disaster

that would not have claimed 3,000 American lives had it not been so

drastically botched as a disaster relief effort, most particularly when it

comes to infrastructure and power grid of Puerto Rico. 


But if you look at it from the Trump administration`s own perspective in

terms of what they care about and what they want to be known for and what

they want to be seen doing, I mean, there`s President Trump today at the

border in California signing a piece of the border, literally writing his

name on a piece of the border.  And here`s the Trump administration happily

defying the Pentagon and Congress and a million lawsuits and lots of very

reasonable concerns, including national security concerns to instead take

money from wherever the president can, including the U.S. military, because

it has to go instead to the border, because the border must be secured

because homeland security is everything. 


Well, this is the stuff they most care about.  This is the stuff they most

want to be judged on.  This is the stuff that where they`re putting all of

their effort, to the detriment of even other stuff that has real political

cost when they low ball it, right? 


Well, the Department of Homeland Security is now led by an acting secretary

who is supported by an acting deputy secretary.  You might have seen the

news today they just fired the general counsel of the Homeland Security

Department as well, the top lawyer in the department.  Quote: We thank John

for this service and we wish him well. 


He`s the top lawyer in Homeland Security.  They pushed him out so suddenly

yesterday that the Trump administration still doesn`t know who is going to

replace him.  The White House says it`s one guy.  The Department of

Homeland Security says some other guy.  Who knows?  We haven`t bothered to

get our story straight, but he had to be fired immediately. 


And whoever is going to come in to be the new general counsel will be

acting, too.  So, there`s acting secretary, acting deputy secretary, now,

they`ll be an acting general counsel, or maybe two.  Who knows?


The sort of chief operating officer of the Department of Homeland Security

is the undersecretary of management.  That`s an acting person right now as

well.  Customs and Border Patrol, that`s an acting commissioner.  ICE,

that`s an acting director.  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,

that`s an acting director.  And, of course, FEMA, where do I begin. 


Like I said, I`m sure the new guy, the new, new guy will be great.  I mean,

I wonder who they`ll find to replace the folks against whom all the felony

bribery charges are pending.  I mean, I don`t think – from our back-and-

forth with FEMA today, it seemed like they were trying to assure us that

those people would not be staying on while charges pend, like while they`re

out on bail? 


FEMA, I think, was assuring us that that wouldn`t happen.  But, you know,

it is hard to get good people these days.  And this is what they want to be

best at.  This is what they want to be seen working on to the exclusion of

everything else. 


And now, tonight, as the FEMA director`s nomination is pulled in very weird

circumstances, tonight there is new news of what is just now falling apart

in the plan to take money from the military to pay for the wall instead. 

We`ve got brand-new news on that front, next.  Stay with us. 




MADDOW:  So, we have breaking news right now on a mystery we have been

following over recent days.  “The Washington Post” has just posted a fairly

jaw dropping story on a subject we have been trying to cover for the past

few days.  This just broke while I was doing the “A” block within the last

couple of minutes.


This is about the whistleblower that we first learned about Friday night

from the House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff.  He released a letter he

had sent to the acting director of national intelligence.  A whistleblower

had apparently come forward from inside the intelligence community with an

urgent and credible complaint. 


The director of national intelligence was refusing to turn that complaint

over to Congress despite federal law that said he had to do so within seven

days.  The DNI blowing through the deadline is something that no director

of national intelligence had ever done before. 


Now, the director of national intelligence said he wasn`t handing over the

complaint despite the law because he claimed it contained potentially

privileged material.  He also took the unusual step of consulting with the

Justice Department about what to do about this complaint.  The Justice

Department should be totally outside this process. 


All of those strange circumstances led Chairman Schiff to conclude the

whistleblower complaint might have something to do with the president or

senior administration officials close to the president.  Well, tonight,

“The Washington Post” has just broken this news.  A scoop that suggests

Chairman Adam Schiff was on to something. 


The headline is this: Trump`s communications with foreign leaders are part

of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and



Here`s the lead.  The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense

showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves

President Trump`s communications with a foreign leader, according to two

former officials familiar with the matter.  Trump`s interaction with the

foreign leader included a promise – promise is in quotes – a promise that

was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S.

intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the

inspector general for the intelligence community. 


It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with

or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has

not been previously disclosed.  It raises new questions about the

president`s handling of sensitive information. 


Now in terms of what the information was or how it came into the hands of

this whistleblower, one former official is telling “The Washington Post”

the communication in question was a phone call.  So, a phone call between

President Trump and a foreign leader.  In terms of who it might have been -

- well, according to “The Post” tonight, the complaint was filed with the

inspector general`s office on August 12th. 


On August 12th, that`s a date on which President Trump was at his golf

resort in New Jersey.  White House records indicate Trump had conversations

or interactions with at least five foreign leaders in the preceding five

weeks.  Among them was a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin

which was initiated by the White House on July 31st.  In that same time

period, Trump also received at least two letters from North Korean leader

Kim Jong-un.  Trump also had meetings with other foreign leaders at the

White House in July, including leaders from Pakistan, the Netherlands and



But, again, according to one source speaking with “The Washington Post”,

the troubling communication by the president was a phone call.  And in

terms of Trump`s phone calls with foreign leaders, at least one of the

phone calls in that period was with Vladimir Putin. 


We don`t know what the troubling promise was.  We also don`t know how this

whistleblower would have known about the contents of the president`s phone

call with the foreign leader. 


But joining us now by phone is “Washington Post” reporter Carol Leonnig who

contributed to this just breaking story from “The Post.”


Carol, thanks for joining us on short notice.  I really appreciate it. 



Of course, Rachel.  It`s a pretty sensational event tonight learning about

this which we`ve been trying to chase for the last few days since Adam

Schiff`s letter and now this new information has come to our great

“Washington Post” colleague. 


MADDOW:  Yes, Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Shane Harris, I should

mention, the lead reporters on this.  Carol, you contributed to this. 


I want to – first, I should ask you if I hit the high points there.  It

seems to me this information was a communication by the president, it was a

communication by the president with a foreign leader, it was a troubling

promise that he made, in that it was a conversation by phone.  It does seem

like if those are all clues that “The Post” has been able to ferret out it

should be able to narrow it down in terms of the time frame and the

potential things that could be within those realm of factual four corners

that this could be. 


LEONNIG:  Yes.  I mean, it does mean – keep in mind, Rachel, the president

speaks to a lot of foreign leaders every day.  And some which are not

obvious to us or recorded for posterity, meaning there have been a lot of

stories about the president having conversations that are not – there are

no note takers.  We don`t know for certain exactly whom he was speaking to. 


But the sources are saying that these are the critical pieces.  Somebody

who used to work at the White House and now has returned to their

intelligence agency has complained to the inspector general that this is

such a serious and flagrant abuse that they want it on record, they want it

noted.  And the inspector general has also made it clear that this is

something the Gang of Eight would normally be briefed about under the



So, it`s serious.  It`s not a small thing.  The sources are also saying and

stressing that this is some sort of promise the president made. 


Meanwhile, White House sources are saying to me that we have to keep in

mind the president is the ultimate sort of declassifier in the government,

and if the president decided that he wanted to share something sensitive or

provide something sensitive or promise something sensitive, that he has

full authority under the law to do that.  The public may not love what he

promised, if these sources are correct.  But he does have the authority

under the law to do that if that`s what`s happened. 


MADDOW:  Although, Carol, correct me if I`m wrong, the whistleblower

process, particularly within the intelligence community going through the

intelligence communities inspector general is such that something being

classified shouldn`t be a barrier toward it being treated as a

whistleblower matter through this process, right, at every step of the way

here both with the I.G. and with the director of national intelligence and

with the intelligence community – intelligence committees in Congress. 

They`re supposed to be able to handle classified information no matter how

classified it is, if it is still, nevertheless, a matter of concern or

grave abuse. 


LEONNIG:  Oh, absolutely.  I mean, it`s not something the gang of eight

can`t know about.  Remember that one of the big clues here is that someone

along the way, either the Justice Department or the White House or both

were consulted and there was some issue of privileged communications

outside the intelligence community, an agency other than the intelligence

community with some sort of privileged communications that they felt made

this that couldn`t be shared with Congress. 


That immediately screams out to a lot of reporters is some sort of White

House executive privilege.  We don`t know the answer to that yet. 


When I raise the issue of classified material, I`m just saying that say the

president provided, promised, suggested he was going to provide something

that was very sensitive, say intel sources and methods.  That would make a

lot of people rear up their heads and be very concerned if the foreign

leader was an adversary or the information could be exploited, could put

our national security or our allies at risk. 


Still, the president has the authority to declassify as he chooses.  He`s

the ultimate power there.  I`m not saying that you couldn`t share this kind

of whistleblower complaint with Congress as a result of some of the

information being classified. 


MADDOW:  And, Carol, to the point – it`s interesting the point you`re

raising about the Gang of Eight.  Obviously, again, the process in terms of

intelligence oversight is that they`re supposed to be able to see

everything and they`re supposed to be briefed on everything no matter its



Are there – forgive my ignorance here, are there issues where the Gang of

Eight has been deprived access to information about the government`s own

behavior or toward the president`s own behavior on the basis of privilege

in the past?  Is that grounds on which things are kept secret even from



LEONNIG:  I have not seen that before.  I don`t expect that – it`s

impossible it`s happened before.  I`m not aware of it happening before. 


Of course, I`m drawing on fairly limited knowledge on breaking news

deadline, not researched it extensively. 


I would say this to your smart question, though, Rachel – this White House

has been far more aggressive in its claims that congressional oversight can

be limited, curbed and constrained by the executive`s desire to keep things

under wraps, and you`ve seen that in the efforts to even just review the

findings of the Mueller investigation, and in an effort to talk to

witnesses in that probe and the privileges that have been cited, the ideas

of vague confidentiality or White House interests that can`t be

compromised.  It`s a pretty aggressive strategy and all White Houses try to

limit how the oversight peers into their world, but this one`s gone more

conservatively in the direction of keeping the curtain closed. 


MADDOW:  Uh-huh.  And thus – and perhaps the confrontation with what the

intelligence community has set up in terms of its own very controversial,

very rigorous, very well-earned oversight strictures from the post-

Watergate era.


Carol Leonnig, “Washington Post” reporter, joining us on very short notice,

contributor to this new reporting from “The Post” tonight – Carol, thank

you very much for helping us understand.  I really appreciate it. 


LEONNIG:  My pleasure.  Good luck, Rachel. 


MADDOW:  Thank you.  Again, the headline tonight, just breaking from “The

Washington Post”, President Trump`s communications with foreign leader are

part of a whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief

and Congress.  We have been watching this unfold since late on Friday night

when the intelligence committee chairman, Adam Schiff, first let it be

known he was aware somebody within the intelligence community have come

forward through proper channels to the inspector general for the

intelligence community and said, I`ve got a serious problem. 


The inspector general looked at it and said, this is credible and this is

urgent.  That set in motion stuff that`s supposed to happen by rote without

any pushback.  They forwarded it to the head of a relevant agency, in this

case, it was determined that should be the director of national

intelligence.  The DNI was then supposed to give it to the Intelligence

Committees in Congress within seven days.  The DNI refused to do that.  And

that has sparked this controversy.


We knew that the inspector general is going to be in a – there was going

to be a closed session tomorrow in the Intelligence Committee.  Closed

doors.  And we won`t be able to see it as the public about this matter. 

There`s been threats of subpoenas from the Intelligence Committees if they

need to get this and fast. 


Now, “The Washington Post” is first to substantively report what this may

be.  If, in fact, the president, as is claimed in “The Washington Post”

reporting tonight, made some sort of claim to a foreign leader, a, quote,

promise, a promise that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an

official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower

complaint, I imagine that this one person is probably not the only person

who knows what the promise was.  They`re coming forward on this matter now

that the country knows how serious this might be, I imagine, will be the

start of the story. 


We`ve got much more ahead on this ahead.  Stay with us.




MADDOW:  You might remember early on in the Trump administration the first

summer he was in office, there was a bombshell leak of a number of

transcripts of the president`s phone calls with foreign leaders, including

the president of Australia and the leader of Mexico, including the

president saying sort of embarrassing, ignorant and disparaging things both

to those leaders and about those calls. 


A lot of scandal around the fact “The Washington Post” obtained those

transcripts.  They were created by White House staff.  One of the changes

the Trump administration made thereafter is they stopped putting note

takers on calls between the president and foreign leaders.  There stopped

being formal and detailed readouts about what happened in those

conversations.  Presumably the idea they didn`t want another leak of what

was going on in those calls, even if the initial leaks this been

essentially people trying to let it be known how the president was behaving

to foreign leaders in a way unprecedented to what we`ve seen from any

previous president. 


Well, now, tonight, that makes it all the more remarkable “The Washington

Post” has a new scoop that has just posted within the last half hour or so. 

That the president may have had a phone call with a foreign leader in which

he made a promise that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an

official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower

complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community. 


This is a whistleblower complaint that has triggered a very intense

showdown between the Trump administration and the Intelligence Committee in

the House in particular.  They`re supposed to get whistleblower complaints

like this.  There have been threats of subpoenas.  There`s been a real

standoff over this. 


“The Post” is the first to report what this complaint might have been about

is the president saying something very, very troubling to a foreign leader

in a way that at least some in the intelligence community became aware it

have and went through channels to raise a flag about what happened. 


Joining us now, again, on short notice, is Congressman John Garamendi,

who`s the chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness.


Mr. Garamendi, I have to tell you, every time we book you to talk about

something going on in your area of expertise, something else bongo – that

is a bombshell and totally gonzo breaks in your area for expertise.  So

thank you for doing this for us. 


REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA):  Yes.  Happy to be with you, Rachel. 


This is just astounding what`s going on here.  Certainly the incident

itself, whatever it might be is extremely troublesome, but it`s one more

brick in the wall that the president is trying to build around himself to

stonewall the Congress of the United States and the American people from

things that he has done as president and before he became president. 


In his own words, he said under no circumstances will his people ever

comply with a subpoena.  Well, here we go one more step on that.  And this

could be extraordinarily important because there are things at play right

now that may very well have been the promise.  One of which I`ve been

dealing with as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. 


MADDOW:  When you say the promise, we don`t know in terms of what “The

Washington Post” is reporting here, right? 


GARAMENDI:  That`s correct. 


MADDOW:  “The Washington Post” says it`s – Trump`s interaction with the

foreign leader included a promise that was regarded as so troubling that it

prompted an official to file this formal whistleblower complaint.  One

former official telling “The Times” that the communication was on a phone

call.  We know the whistleblower complaint was filed in August, August



So, that narrows it down in terms of what communication it might have been. 




MADDOW: I have to say, just thinking about this from a process standpoint,

if this was the worst case scenario, if this is something that the worst

thing we could possibly imagine, what else is this whistleblower supposed

to do besides go through this process that the Trump administration is

still bottling up? 


GARAMENDI:  Well, apparently, the law is absolutely clear.  The information

has to be made available to the intelligence community, the Gang of Eight. 


But I`ve got to tell you, I`m worried about the promise if there was one

and if it was the president.  If he was talking to Putin one month after

that August 12th period of time, the president removed $770 million from

the European Deterrence Initiative which is specifically money to push back

on Russia`s incursion into Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.  God help us

if that was what the discussion was about. 


But it is troubling – it is troubling when you start stacking all of these

things up.  $5 billion out of the coffers and the work the military does to

build his border wall.  It was nice he went down and signed that steel

post.  But that happened to have been a fence that was already in place

before he ever got there, before he ever became president. 


It`s one thing after another.  This administration, its stonewalling, its

refusal to be held to account, it just – is beyond anything that anyone

has ever seen in the history of this nation. 


MADDOW:  Do you have confidence, sir, especially given your role in

oversight of the U.S. military, do you have confidence in the military?  Do

you have confidence in the inspector general`s system so that when the most

egregious things happen, that the supposedly legally protected channels for

people letting us being – letting it be known what`s happening and why,

that those channels will be held open, or do you think that the system is



GARAMENDI:  I think there`s an entire attitude of laxity with regard to

activities, proper activities.  It begins at the White House.  The leader

is clearly corrupt.  There`s no other way to describe it. 


The leader is clearly a liar.  A leader has no use for the truth and will

say anything at any time that advances his particular interest at that

moment.  And so, that tends to sift down through the entire administration. 


You gave a long dissertation just in the early part of this hour about

what`s going on in FEMA and the tragedy in Puerto Rico as a result of the

corruption, as a result of the laxity to laws and just ignoring the normal

correctness that ought to occur at every level. 


The military is outstanding.  These are all very, very good people.  But

when the top makes it clear that they welcome – the president when he

welcomes on to his property literally millions of dollars of taxpayer money

to support him at Mar-a-Lago and at his other resorts, it doesn`t surprise

me that all across, in this case the military, that they see, well, why

don`t we go ahead and book some rooms at the resort at Turnberry in



It`s just – this whole thing is just a corrupt administration.  It sifts

down.  I don`t believe there was any intentional wrongdoing on the part of

the military.  But the laxity of standard, it`s endemic in so many places. 


And as representatives of the people of America, the 535 of us in the House

and in the Senate, we have the obligation to hold the administration

accountable, to uncover the deflects, to uncover the fraud, the corruption,

and to let the American people know there is three branches of government,

and the administration cannot do anything it pleases to do even though it

apparently has courts now that will let it do it.  But we`re still the

representatives of the people and we have an obligation here to investigate

and to let the public, our constituents, the American people, know what`s

going on. 


MADDOW:  California Congressman John Garamendi of the House Armed Services

Committee, the chair of the Subcommittee on Readiness, sir, I appreciate

your time tonight.  Thank you for being here.




MADDOW:  And for always be a harbinger of breaking news.  I really

appreciate it.


GARAMENDI:  Take care.


MADDOW:  All right.  We`ve got more ahead.  It`s turning out to be a very

busy night.  Stay with us.




MADDOW:  News tonight, a story we`ve been following closely on the show,

Purdue Pharma, the company behind the mega opioid OxyContin, which is

charged with fueling the epidemic that has claimed the lives of 400,000



Purdue is currently in bankruptcy court trying to settle thousands of

lawsuits brought against the company, filing for bankruptcy almost

automatically puts all of those lawsuits against the company on hold.  But

crucial point, that doesn`t stop the mounting pile of lawsuits against the

family behind Purdue Pharma, the Sackler, which was enriched to

multibillion dollar effect by the sales of OxyContin and that has taken

billions of dollars out of the company as the company approached



So, bankruptcy stops the lawsuits against the company but not against the

family.  Except now, tonight, lawyers for Purdue are asking the bankruptcy

judge to also put on hold all the lawsuits against the Sacklers personally,

which, of course, is an effort to try to shield the family wealth from

these lawsuits.  Lawyers as of now are asking for an injunction against

lawsuits against the Sackler family personally because they say they are

related parties to Purdue in the overall bankruptcy case. 


Now, this is a highly unusual move.  It suggests that by filing for

bankruptcy, the Sackler family is looking to protect themselves too not

just the company as a way to protect their own personal billions of



My next guest is the first attorney general to sue the Sackler family

personally.  Maura Healey is the attorney general from Massachusetts.  She

wrote a blistering op-ed in “The Washington Post” this week explaining why

she and 20-plus other state attorneys general are rejecting Purdue`s

settlement offer. 


She said in that op-ed in part, quote: Accountability means making the

Sacklers reaching into their own pockets.  It means telling the full truth. 

It means shutting down Purdue for good, and accountability means listening

to the families who are calling for justice. 


Joining us now is the Massachusetts A.G. Maura Healey.


Madam Attorney General, thank you very much for joining us tonight.  It`s

good to have you here. 





MADDOW:  So we`ve been watching the legal accountability issue for the

opioid crisis sort of spread out as the companies and the families enriched

by the companies` behavior try to make their legal liability come to an

end.  They try to sort of cut these things off and try to protect



What`s your big picture view of where we are right now in terms of legal

accountability for the crisis? 


HEALEY:  Well, you nailed it, Rachel.  This is about accountability.  Look,

Purdue going out of business is a really good thing.  But the Sacklers

can`t and shouldn`t use the bankruptcy proceeding as a vehicle to shield

themselves from liability, and from accountability, and ultimately, that

would be wrong for the more than 400,000 families across this country who

have lost someone to this deadly epidemic. 




MADDOW:  Go ahead.


HEALEY:  Well, I just think as background here, I want to be really clear. 

I mean, we were the first state to file a lawsuit naming the Sacklers

because the Sacklers directly controlled and operated Purdue for many, many

years.  In the course of those years sucked billions and billions of

dollars from Purdue. 


Now, what`s happened now is there have been hundreds of lawsuits filed now

against Purdue and the Sackler family and, of course, Purdue has now filed

for bankruptcy.  Again, the Sacklers are trying to use that as a vehicle to

shut down litigation against them.  And we say, no. 


I also want to be clear with the American public about what this bankruptcy

deal is about and what it isn`t.  This deal wouldn`t require the Sacklers

to pay back a dime from the profits they made.  All of it would be funded

from future sales of OxyContin which is so offensive to me. 


MADDOW:  Wow.  Yes. 


HEALEY:  That settlement would be funded by the sale of the very deadly and

addictive drug that has ravaged communities across this country.  And, you

know, the Sacklers have done a good job over the years of hiding the truth

from the American public.  And this settlement would allow for that story,

that truth to stay hidden forever. 


And so, I think those are fundamentally some of the injustices here and why

the deal just isn`t right. 


MADDOW:  If the deal isn`t right and if you and your fellow attorneys

general who are saying no to this carry the day, and they go through with

this bankruptcy proceeding as they are trying to do, what`s the other

alternative?  Is this a high risk move?  Is there a possibility that

communities and states and families around the country that are victims

here won`t get anything if they don`t get this? 


HEALEY:  You know, Rachel, I am so sympathetic to the needs of our states

and our cities to get relief, to get money, to help with the damage created

and caused in so many ways by Purdue and the Sackler family. 


But I`ll tell you what.  Fundamentally, the question here is who`s going to

pay for this?  Is it going to be the Sacklers or is payment going to come

from future and continued sales of Oxy? 


And to me, the answer is clear.  It should come from the Sacklers.  It

shouldn`t come from the continued sales of a drug known to cause such



We`re going to continue to fight this and will be in bankruptcy court

opposing the proposed settlement and deal and will continue in our own

state court.  In fact, today, Rachel, my office won a big case, won a big

decision from a judge here where Purdue tried to dismiss our case and the

judge said, no.  Go ahead. 


So, we`re prepared to fight.  We`re prepared to see this through. 

Bankruptcy isn`t for billionaires and hopefully the courts will see through

to allowing us to proceed against the Sacklers. 


And, ultimately, we`ve got to do everything we can so the story is told and

so that justice is obtained.  And that`s really my job as a state attorney

general to make sure we follow the facts, make sure we follow the law, and

make sure we seek justice on behalf – especially on behalf of the so many

families in this country who have been so devastated by what is in our time

the nation`s largest public health crisis. 


MADDOW:  Maura Healey, attorney general for the great state of

Massachusetts, thank you so much for your time tonight.  I really

appreciate you being here.


HEALEY:  Great to be with you.


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




MADDOW:  This has been a wild night for breaking news. 


We were first to report right at the top of the show that the president`s

nominee for director of FEMA has withdrawn his nomination.  They are

telling us tonight that he did so last week but, OK.  It`s breaking news as

of tonight. 


Then, came news on this mysterious whistleblower case we`ve been following. 

“The Washington Post” saying tonight that an intelligence community

whistleblower was so disturbed by something President Trump said to a

foreign leader on the phone, the whistleblower was so disturbed by some

sort of promise in that interaction, that the whistleblower filed a formal



This is something we`ve been trying to follow, trying to suss out over the

last few days.  Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff announcing today that the

acting inspector general, excuse me, the acting director of national

intelligence will testify in open session on this matter next week. 


But even sooner tomorrow morning, they`re going to have the inspector

general for the intelligence community behind closed doors talking to the

committee about this.  I don`t know what kind of read out to expect we`ll

get from that testimony tomorrow but wow.  We are trying to get Chairman

Schiff on the show tomorrow night to tell us what he can.  What a wild

night for news. 


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




Good evening, Lawrence.







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