Facebook takedowns TRANSCRIPT: 10/21/2019, The Rachel Maddow Show

Jim Himes, Amy Klobuchar


Date: October 21, 2019


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Yes, that`s exactly the point.  And that`s why we

do the Rudy Giuliani/Fred Thompson gut check to remind people of that. 

Cornell Belcher and Ryan Grim, thank you both for being with me.


By the way, if you are here in L.A., where I am, I`m heading over to the

Theatre at the Ace Hotel to do a live WITHpod recording, come on by. 

There`s still a few tickets left.


That is ALL IN for this evening. 


“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now.


Good evening, Rachel.


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Have an amazing time.  I`m so jealous.


HAYES:  Thank you.


MADDOW:  I wish I was there.  It`s going to be amazing.


HAYES:  I`m really looking forward to it.  Thanks a lot.


MADDOW:  OK, bye, good luck.  I know, traffic.  He has to rush. 


HAYES:  Yes, exactly. 


MADDOW:  Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.  Hope you had a

great weekend. 


I did my best.  I will say, this was one of those weekends, though, where

the news kept creeping in.  I feel like we don`t get weekends off anymore

in terms of big news developments. 


You probably heard this weekend that the president had a change of heart. 

He decided that holding next year`s G-7 summit at his private resort this

Florida maybe wouldn`t be such a good idea after all, especially because it

left Republicans in Congress feeling a little queasy at a time when they

were already having a hard time defending him in these impeachment



Even though the president blamed Democrats and the media for this change of

heart, it`s quite clear that the reason that he changed on this is because

Republicans were not standing by him on though decision.  And the big open

secret of the Trump presidency is that this president cannot bear even the

smallest amount of pressure from Republicans.  Any pushback from

Republicans, particularly Republicans in Congress, and instantly, he caves. 


And so, he caved on bringing the big international summit to his own golf

club and forcing foreign governments to pay him, if they want to come to

that summit.  It`s a very big story all weekend and into today, as well. 


One story you might not have heard that much about alongside that big story

is a story that is actually a much bigger story.  Remember Hillary

Clinton`s e-mails?  It turns out the investigation into Hillary Clinton`s

e-mails is no more.  After four and a half years, it appears the national

media obsession with Hillary Clinton`s State Department email management or

at least the investigation into her email management, that has now finally,

finally drawn to a conclusion, after four and a half years. 


And in the end, what do you know, turns out there was nothing there after

all.  We got these almost word-for-word headlines in “The New York Times”

and “The Washington Post” over the weekend.  As “The Post” put it, State

Department probe of Clinton e-mails finds no deliberate mishandling of

classified information.  As “The Times” puts it, State Department inquiry

into Clinton e-mails finds no deliberate mishandling of classified



Oh, good to know!  Where do we go to get the last four and a half years



I mean, here was “The New York Times,” March 2015, right?  Reporting that

Hillary Clinton had, quote, possibly broken State Department rules.  And

the entire Democratic presidential primary, the story of Hillary Clinton`s

email hygiene and whether it had been somehow something bad, whether she

had broken any laws about classified information during her time as

secretary of state, the story about her private email server, it was just

headline after headline after headline after headline after headline,

oftentimes to the exclusion of anything else you might have been interested

in during that campaign. 


And that was true even when her main opponent in the Democratic primary,

the person who had the most to gain from promoting the story, declared the

story to be nonsense.  In one of the most memorable moments from the whole

Democratic primary in 2016. 




SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT):  Let me say – let me say something that may

not be great politics, but I think the secretary is right.  And that is to

the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damned e-





SANDERS:  Enough of the e-mails.  Let`s talk about the real issues facing





MADDOW:  It was not an issue that was being driven by the competition of

the Democratic primary.  That was, what you just saw there, the competition

in the Democratic primary, right?  The way the primary was going was,

enough of the damn e-mails.  But you ask the media and you certainly ask

the conservatives and Republicans, never enough of the damn e-mails. 


Republican-led Congress, the FBI, the State Department, each launched

separate investigations into the e-mails.  Republican attacks on Secretary

Clinton and her e-mails escalated and escalated and escalated.  Things

reached a particularly creepy crescendo at the 2016 Republican convention,

when Trump advisers like Chris Christie and Mike Flynn led the crowd in

chants of “lock her up, lock her up.” 


And what did they want to lock her up for?  For her e-mails. 





prosecutor, I welcome the opportunity to hold Hillary Rodham Clinton

accountable for her performance and her character. 




Now – 





Yes, that`s right.  Lock her up!  I`m going to tell you what.  It`s





MADDOW:  This didn`t come from the Democratic primary.  But all through the

general election, right, candidate Trump would get as much mileage as

possible out of the ongoing, not just conservative, but especially the

media obsession Hillary Clinton`s e-mails. 







We have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  She should be in prison.  Let me

tell you. 


She deleted the e-mails.  She has to go to jail.


She shouldn`t be allowed to run.






MADDOW:  She was allowed to run.  Sorry. 


But the State Department investigation into Hillary Clinton`s e-mails,

behind the scenes, has been continuing all this time, not only through the

election, but since the election.  All right, even as the conservative

media`s obsession with Clinton`s e-mails had been parodied into oblivion,

right, embodied by the “but her e-mails” memes, right?  Nuclear apocalypse,

but her e-mails, right?


The obsession with the emails, the conservative media, Republican Party,

the Trump campaign, the mainstream media, but her e-mails, right?  Even as

that became a pretty standard punch line that you could apply to almost any

joke about things being blown out of proportion, all of this time, all of

these years now, the State Department has been investigating it.  The State

Department under Rex Tillerson.  The State Department under Mike Pompeo. 

They continued to investigate Hillary Clinton and her e-mails. 


I mean, just as recently as last month, we were getting headlines like

these, saying the State Department probe into Hillary Clinton`s e-mails was

intensifying.  As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks

by State Department investigators.  That was last month. 


And then we get the findings.  You know, someone, clear some space on page

A-16 of the Saturday edition of the print paper.  Because there will be no

fanfare here, no blaring of Trumpets, not even a whimper here.  We will

just learn quietly that, oh, by the way, that investigation is over and it

didn`t find anything. 


In a nine-page letter to Congress announcing the end of the years-long

State Department investigation, we learn that despite thousands of person

hours of review and investigative effort including statements from hundreds

of department of state employees, past and present, in conclusion, there

was no persuasive evidence of systemic deliberate mishandling of classified



No persuasive evidence.  No deliberate mishandling of classified

information.  None. 


After all of the buckets and buckets and vats and factories full of ink

devoted to this supposedly earth-shattering scandal, we have reached the

end and it turns out, there was nothing there.  As “The Washington Post`s”

write-up concludes, quote, the report appears to represent a final and

anticlimactic chapter in a controversy that overshadowed the 2016

presidential campaign and exposed Hillary Clinton to fierce criticism,

which she later cited as a major factor in her loss to President Trump. 


So that happened this weekend.  You might not have noticed on page A-16 of

the front section of the smallest paper of the week on Saturday.  You might

not have noticed the blanket coverage that didn`t exist of the ending of

this scandal that was the most important thing, according to the media, in

2016, that you needed to know about Hillary Clinton and her candidacy. 


So part of what we need to reckon with here is about whether we`re about to

do this haul again as a country, right?  Whether we are going to slog

through another campaign season in which there are super serious scandals

and corruption issues involving one of the candidates.  And so, perversely,

on the other side, whatever smudges and insinuations can be smeared under

the other candidate, those will be evaluated into things that are supposed

to look just as bad or maybe even worse than what Trump is dragging around

behind him in plain sight. 


I mean, it happened in 2016, in large part off a media environment where

we`re all supposed to pretend that bad news and scandal are evenly

distributed between the two sides.  Even when on one side, you`ve got

basically a normal candidate.  On the other side, you`ve got a walking,

talking crime wave. 


It happened because of that media environment, which still plagues us.  It

also happened because the side supporting the crime wave guy knows how to

play this game.  And they are playing it again already for the next



And some of it is happening just like it did in 2016.  And some of it is

worse and I think it`s going to be more powerful than it was in 2016.  In

part because this is a second draft for these guys, right?  They ran this

play in 2016.  They worked out some of the kinks. 


Now they`ll do it again with the benefit of knowing what worked for them

and what didn`t work the first time around.  It`s a second draft.  It`s

going to be better and more polished. 


More seriously, though, I think some of this is also going to be worse this

time around, because this time, the intended beneficiary of this same play. 

This slime and false equivalency play is – this time, he`s not just a

candidate, he`s a president, with the resources of the U.S. government at

his disposal and his own willingness to use the resources of the U.S.

government to benefit himself politically. 


Let me show you what I mean.  You might have seen this headline today in

“The New York Times.”  Facebook finds new disinformation campaigns.  “The

New York Times” reporting somewhat generically today that Facebook says the

disinformation campaigns it removed on Monday included content that touched

on conflict in the Middle East, racial strife, and posts involving

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic congresswoman from New York.  The

posts crossed categories and ideological lines, seemingly with no specific



Seemingly with no specific intent?  Why would they even bother then?  If

they have no intent behind these foreign influence things that they`re

doing online – they have no intent behind them? 


Maybe it`s just a glitch in the system.  Maybe it`s just ghosts in the

machine.  Nothing to see here. 


Actually, yes, it turns out, there is something to see here.  Here`s a

different take.  Facebook takedowns show new Russian activity targeted

Biden, praised Trump.  Oh, well, that does seem like there`s some intent

there, then.  Quote, Facebook on Monday said it removed a network of

Russian-backed accounts that posed as locals, weighing in on political

issues in swing states, praising President Trump and attacking former vice

president Joe Biden. 


The network bears the hallmark of the same Kremlin-backed group that

interfered in the 2016 election, by sowing social discord, boosting Trump

and attacking Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.  The new disinformation

campaign appears to follow the same playbook.  This time, a coordinated

group of Russian accounts appears to show some links to the Internet

Research Agency, just like in 2016.  This time, they took largely to

Instagram to post content this year about U.S. politics and memes targeting

Democratic presidential contenders. 


Quote: The operation demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the

schisms within the Democratic Party, as it labors to choose a nominee to

face Trump next November.  One Russian account, which portrayed itself as a

black voter in Michigan used the hashtag black lives matter to hammer Joe

Biden for his gaffes on racial issues.  Some of the accounts boosted one of

his left-wing rivals, Senator Bernie Sanders. 


Among the accounts posing as backers of the political and social causes in

the U.S., the largest cluster was conservative and in support of Trump. 

Numerous accounts aimed their fire at Democratic candidates, namely Biden,

but also Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Kamala Harris.


Biden came under attack from accounts that positioned themselves on both

sides of the political spectrum.  One account re-posted a tweet from a

right-wing political commentator, parroting Trump`s rebuke of Biden, while

another posted a meme showing a road diverging and a car swerving to choose

the path representing Bernie 2020 over Joe Biden. 


Four years earlier, in 2016, Russian-backed Facebook accounts similarly

promoted Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary against Hillary



So, they`re doing it exactly the same way.  I mean, that`s exactly what the

Russian social media campaign that worked so well for Trump in 2016 did,

right?  I mean, the Senate Intelligence Committee led by the Republicans,

just within the past two weeks, put out their bipartisan report on what

Russia did in 2016 with social media. 


According to the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, the bottom

line was crystal clear.  Quote, at the direction of the Kremlin, the

Internet Research Agency in Russia sought to influence in 2016 U.S.

presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton`s chances of success and

supporting Donald Trump.  And how did specifically they did that?  Did they

do that? 


Well, here was their specific play.  Quote, Clinton`s candidacy was

targeted by both the IRA`s left and right personas and both ideological

representations were focused on denigrating her.  The IRA`s left-leaning

accounts focused their efforts on denigrating Clinton and supporting the

candidacy of either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, at the expense of

Clinton.  Posts from the IRA`s right-leaning accounts were unvaryingly

opposed to Clinton`s candidacy. 


So, in 2016, we saw the Internet Research Agency, directed by the Kremlin,

playing both left-wing and right-wing fake American personas.  Hitting

Hillary Clinton from the left, hitting Hillary Clinton from the right. 

Both to the benefit of Donald Trump. 


Now, in 2020, we`re seeing the exact same thing.  Internet Research Agency

directed by the Kremlin, using fake personas, fake American personas that

appear to be from the left, from the right, particularly ones that seem to

situate themselves in swing states and they`re hitting Joe Biden, both from

the left and from the right, both to benefit Donald Trump.  Sometimes

they`re hitting the other Democratic candidates, too, just in case Biden

doesn`t get the nomination, but it`s the exact same play. 


Russia right now today is playing it online exactly the same way they did

in 2016.  I mean, it`s literally today, Facebook took down these Russian

meme-making anti-democratic online personas.  These pro-Trump online



So, that part is in place again, just exactly like it was before.  I mean,

why wouldn`t the Russians do it again, right?  It`s not like they got in

trouble for doing it the first time. 


And we`ve got this president who was in the middle of impeachment

proceedings, like he did in 2016.  He wasn`t under impeachment proceedings

then, but we had this sort of scandal-ridden candidate in 2016 who was very

busy in 2016 trying to make it seem like the other side had the scandals. 

Now, he`s the president of the United States, not only facing scandals, but

facing impeachment proceedings and similarly, he`s running the same play. 


He`s trying to say, it`s the Democrats who have the ones with all the big

scandal to contend with, particularly scandals involving foreign countries

and interfering in the elections, right?  He keeps saying, it`s not him who

has the corruption problem, he`s the corruption fighter.  The Democrats are

the ones with the corruption problem. 




TRUMP:  Corruption, we are looking for corruption.  Tremendous corruption. 

Beyond corruption.  We are looking at corruption. 


I don`t care about politics.  I don`t care about anything.  But I do care

about corruption. 




MADDOW:  I bet you do.  No puppet, no puppet, you`re the puppet!  I`m

rubber, you`re glue. 


We have seen this before.  Except this time, he`s doing it as the president

of the United States.  So, this time it`s not just him and his campaign,

this time it`s also the power of the White House that`s being put behind

this tactic. 





me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server?  Absolutely, no

question about that.  But that`s it, that`s why we held up the money.  But

there was a report –


REPORTER:  So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part

of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine? 


MULVANEY:  The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the

thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. 


REPORTER:  Withholding the funding? 






MADDOW:  Withholding the funding for that?  Yes, yes. 


And the president is in the middle of impeachment proceedings right now

because of him telling the government of Ukraine to investigate his

political opponents, to give him something he could use in U.S. politics. 

But what they have also been spelling out is not just a campaign effort

here.  It`s a whole of the Trump administration effort here to come up with

some kind of foreign influence scandal to pin on the other side. 


What he`s in trouble for, let`s make it the Democrats` problem instead.  I

mean, the new iteration of the Hillary`s e-mails lock her up nonsense,

which the media ran with it like it was real for years, this time the

equivalent of that is this allegation that it`s the Democrats, it`s Joe

Biden, that somehow they`re the ones who have got the real scandal here. 




MULVANEY:  There`s an ongoing investigation by our Department of Justice

into the 2016 election.  I can`t remember the person`s name.  Durham. 

Durham, OK?  That`s an ongoing investigation, all right? 


So you`re saying the president of the United States, the chief law

enforcement person, cannot ask someone to cooperate with an ongoing public

investigation into wrongdoing? 




MADDOW:  Behold the Hillary`s e-mails story of this election cycle.  Yes,

it must be the Democrats who have a scandal here. 


And you know, it is bad to have apparently corrupt actors around the

presidency who are generating stuff like this, right?  Bloomberg reporting

on Friday night that a Ukrainian oligarch close to the Kremlin who`s said

by U.S. prosecutors to be highly connected to Russian organized crime, he`s

been paying assorted Trump-world figures to try to get the Justice

Department to drop their efforts to extradite him to this country to face

bribery charges and one of the ways he`s been paying is with ginned up

allegations against Joe Biden, that he thinks might be valuable to

President Trump and the Trump campaign. 


All right, it`s bad enough to have stuff like that around the presidency

with dollar signs hanging off of it.  But it`s a whole different level of

dangerous when one of the actors you`re able to employ in schemes like this

is the U.S. justice department.  That is a much, much bigger, much more

worrying problem. 


Quote: Review of Russia inquiry grows as FBI witnesses are questioned.  Did

you see this this weekend?  Closely overseen by Attorney General William

Barr, federal prosecutors are – federal prosecutors reviewing the origins

of the Russia investigation have sought help from governments in countries

that figure into right-wing attacks and unfounded conspiracy theories,

stirring criticism that they are trying to deliver Mr. Trump a political

victory rather than conducting an independent review. 


Comments from the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, have put the

spotlight on the fact that Ukraine is one country that prosecutors have

sought help from.  According to people being questioned in the

investigation, lead prosecutor John Durham`s questions seem focused on

elements of the conservative attacks on the origins of the Russia inquiry. 


Oh, that was Saturday in “The New York Times.”  This was NBC News with a

follow up.  A review launched by Attorney General William Barr into the

origins of the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid

concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis, according

to multiple, current, and former officials.  A Western intelligence

official familiar with what Durham has been asking of foreign officials

says his inquiries track closely with the questions raised about the Russia

investigation in right-wing media. 


Quote: A Justice Department spokeswoman said the list of countries being

examined includes Ukraine, but she declined to say whether the Durham

investigation is looking at corruption related to the DNC, as Mick Mulvaney

put it in his news conference last week.  Under that discredited theory,

Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the Democrats in 2016.  To believe that, one

would have the doubt the unanimous assessment of the intelligence community

and the findings of congressional intelligence committees who have examined

the classified evidence.


Yes, you`d have to doubt the actual factual record here, but that won`t be

a problem.  I mean, to step back from this for a second, right?  The

industrial strength, foreign-boosted online noise machine, right, to boost

Trump, denigrate the Democrats, demoralize and split the left – check. 

Russia in particular is doing it exactly the way they were in 2016, using

exactly the same actors, doing exactly the same way, just a little slicker

this time.  That`s back. 


The counter-narrative from the conservatives about the real scandal being

on the other side, never mind what you can see plain as day when it comes

to Trump, that`s back, too.  Except this time, it won`t just be something

shopped by the conservative media and Trump supporters and swallowed whole

by the regular media.  This time, it will be amplified not just by the

candidate and the campaign, this time it will be amplified by the White

House.  And this time its apparent source will be the U.S. Justice



William Barr, the attorney general, was mentioned over and over again by

the president in the call for which he is being impeached, call to the

president of Ukraine.  The president repeatedly describing the attorney

general on that call as the person Ukraine should work were to provide him

what he wanted.  The attorney general, or forgive me, a person familiar

with the attorney general`s thinking, told the “Associated Press” soon

after we all got the transcript of that call, that William Barr was, quote,

surprised and angry to find out that he had been mentioned so frequently by

the president as a key part of this scheme that the president was trying to

work out with Ukraine. 


Then, the Justice Department, nevertheless, did have to admit that, yeah,

him and Durham, this prosecutor he assigned to look into the 2016 election,

yes, they have been talking to people in Ukraine about this conspiracy

theory that the Trump campaign has tried to gin up about the Democrats. 

Despite William Barr`s implication in this scandal, the president, again,

repeatedly citing him as the person that Ukraine should work with to carry

out this scheme, when the Justice Department received multiple criminal

referrals about the president`s behavior when it came to Ukraine, William

Barr decided he would not recuse himself from the Justice Department`s

decision-making in this matter. 


The Justice Department`s criminal division then looked at those criminal

referrals and decided they would not open any kind of investigation into

the matter, despite the fact that they got multiple criminal referrals for

it, from inside the administration. 


And now, bizarrely, this weekend, the same head of that same criminal

division at the Justice Department has released a bizarre statement in

which he admits that, yes, he has been meeting with the president`s

personal lawyer, who`s been running this Ukraine scheme, Rudy Giuliani. 

He`s met with him to talk with him about at least one foreign bribery case

that`s being prosecuted by the Justice Department, where Giuliani is right

to get defendants off in that case.  The head of the criminal division

releasing a strange statement this weekend that that meeting with Giuliani

was a mistake.  He only took that meeting because he didn`t know at the

time about Rudy Giuliani`s own legal troubles, including the arrests of his

clients/associates and the multiple reports that Giuliani himself is under

investigation by federal prosecutors. 


“The Times” now describing the president`s current personal attorney, Rudy

Giuliani, as a, quote, person of interest in at least two federal

investigations.  Head of the criminal division has been meeting with him

about specific cases anyway.  Said he had no idea that he, the head of the

criminal division, was overseeing – that the Justice Department was

investigating – that Giuliani at SDNY was – he had no idea.  He`s only

the head of the criminal division.  How could he know? 


So we know politically that things going to get weird, right?  We are going

to have – we already have more foreign interference, weaponizing social

media in favor of Trump and against the Democrats and particularly trying

to divide the left and the center against itself.  We`ve got that already. 


We`re also going to have another run of the no puppet, no puppet, you`re

the puppet, blame the other side stuff, from Trump and from the

conservative media and from Trump supporters. 


What is new is that this time it really does seem that they are going to

use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to help them make that case

that the Democrats are the real source of the scandal here.  And that is

what is new about what is coming and what we are already starting to live

through for the 2020 campaign. 


And because the Justice Department will be the source of these claims that

the Democrats are the real scandal here, that will be irresistible to most

of the media.  If they stay anywhere – if they stay half as gullible as

they were in 2016.  All right?  If they refuse to learn from the truth of

what the Hillary email story was all about, now that it`s been revealed to

have been nothing.  Nothing on which they spent years of coverage to the

exclusion of everything you might think the 2016 campaign coverage perhaps

should have been about, now that we can look back at it with clear

hindsight and see what was really going on. 


But I have to say, this is not like getting the Agriculture Department

involved here, right?  Or even getting the State Department involved here,

as dangerous as that was.  Getting the Justice Department involved here is

a dangerous new thing for the power of that part of the state, the power of

that part of the government to be brought to bear against the president`s

political enemies.  To be brought to bear, to gin up something for his

political benefit. 


Authoritarian leaders, the world over, tend to get re-elected specifically

because they bring the power of the state to bear on the election machinery

that keeps them in power.  U.S. Justice Department being employed here to

try to rerun that part of the 2016 campaign, where they ginned up a fake

scandal and tried to pin it on the Democrats, so that the media and all its

both-sides-ism would make that supposed Democratic scandal out to be as big

or bigger than the plain as day scandals on Trump side, the Justice

Department being part of that play, part of that re-run in 2020, that`s a

bad thing for 2020. 


But it is also a bad thing for the country.  That`s a big, bad red flag

sign about the way this government can be used for the personal benefit of

one man.  And with what William Barr and this prosecutor Durham that he`s

leading around world to do this thing for, with what Barr and Durham appear

to be doing here to try to boost the president`s campaign, they are

crossing a bit of a Rubicon in terms of what the U.S. government is for. 

And part of what we`ll have to figure out when this is all over is how we

cross back over it. 


We`ll be right back. 




MADDOW:  Update for you tonight in the criminal court offshoot to the

ongoing impeachment proceedings against President Trump.  As you know, four

guys have been charged in that criminal case for allegedly illegally

funneling foreign money to Republican candidates and campaigns. 


As of Friday, we were able to report that three of them had made bail. 

Only one guy, the guy on the far left of your screen, Lev Parnas, the guy

who went as Rudy Giuliani`s date to President George H.W.`s funeral, as of

Friday night, Lev Parnas was only one who was still in custody while the

others have bailed out.  Well, now, we can tell you as of today, Mr. Parnas

is also out. 


He was released this morning on al $200,000 cash bond.  He is reportedly

under house arrest.  He has to submit to GPS monitoring. 


Mr. Parnas, Lev, and the man he was arrested with, Igor Fruman, the two of

them are due in court in New York the day after tomorrow to be arraigned. 

And that`s when they`ll both enter a plea for the first time.  That said,

tomorrow on Capitol Hill, the impeachment proceedings will proceed right

alongside this.  Veteran U.S. State Department official Bill Taylor

expected to testify before the impeachment committees tomorrow.  Ambassador

Taylor is the guy when they convinced to pinch hit at U.S. embassy in

Ukraine after that campaign by Rudy Giuliani and, according to prosecutors,

some of these defendants, to fire the existing ambassador, Marie

Yovanovitch, after that campaign was successful and they ousted

Yovanovitch, Ambassador Taylor was sent in to kind of, again, pinch hit for



Ambassador Taylor`s real claim to fame, though, may be as the author of the

most refrigerator magnet friendly text from this whole scandal.  He`s the

one who said, quote: I think it`s crazy to withhold security assistance for

help with a political campaign. 


Ambassador Bill Taylor is not just going to be a fact witness here.  That

text message is now important evidence in these impeachment proceedings. 


Joining us now is Congressman Jim Himes.  He`s a member of the Intelligence

Committee, one of the committees that will be hearing that deposition



Sir, thanks very much for your time tonight. 


REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT):  Hi, Rachel. 


MADDOW:  So we`ve watched the deposition schedule change a little bit and

we`ve watched as the sort of calendar has shifted in terms of who`s

actually expected to turn up. 


Do you think that the State Department will try to block Ambassador Taylor

from being there tomorrow? 


HIMES:  Well, they may.  But, you know, what`s remarkable about the last

couple of weeks is despite the three or four-page letter that Congress got

from the White House saying, we`re not helping you, this is a fake inquiry,

it turns out that actually State Department people, retired and not retired

are showing up for their depositions. 


So, I do imagine that Mr. Taylor will show up and I do imagine that the

rest of the witnesses will.  Obviously, we got delayed a bit because my

colleague, Elijah Cummings` memorial service will be at the end of the this

week.  But things are moving along, despite that bizarre letter from the

White House saying they weren`t cooperating. 


MADDOW:  In terms of Ambassador Taylor and what you`re going to ask him.  I

know this is a closed-door deposition and it hasn`t happened yet, but

obviously, his texts, which we`ve now seen, I think it is crazy to withhold

security assistance for help with a political campaign, the reason that is

so striking, the reason that has become the refrigerator magnet of this –

of this scandal thus far is because it really appears like he was putting

that in writing in order to make sure there was a record of what was going

on.  At least from what we can see from the outside, it appears that`s what

the implication was of that text. 


From all you have seen thus far, from being inside these proceedings, are

we interpreting that the correct way? 


HIMES:  I think that`s right.  And, you know, I think it`s important that

we understand why it was that Bill Taylor, a professional diplomat, a guy

with, you know, diplomacy to do, not anybody`s political interests to look

after, twice in two separate texts said, my god, what are we doing here? 

Some version thereof. 


We need to understand why he got that impression.  Why did he think there

was a quid pro quo?  I would point out that, Rachel, that – you know, when

the chief of staff gives a public press conference in which he says, yes,

sure, there was a quid pro quo, and where the American people can read the

transcript where the American president says, hey, will you do me a favor,



You know, the facts are not really in dispute.  So, when you step away from

tomorrow`s testimony, I do think we`ve got a little bit more work to do to

understand exactly who helped implement the orders to withhold the military

aid, to withhold a White House meeting for the new president, who was in

that line of command? 


And by the way, we don`t talk about it much, but one of the truly bright

lights of the diplomatic service, Marie Yovanovitch, was dismissed from her

post in Ukraine.  The dismissal of an ambassador is a pretty big deal.  The

secretary of state would generally know about that sort of thing.  That is

also a very significant abuse of power if it was undertaken because

Giuliani is running around spreading rumors that she`s not on the team. 


So, we do have a little bit more work to understand exactly who is in the

line of decision making of these uses of American public resources to

accomplish this bizarre and seedy aim for President Trump`s re-election. 


MADDOW:  Congressman Jim Himes, a member of the House Intelligence

Committee, thanks for your time tonight, sir.  I know it`s going to be a

very, very busy week.  I appreciate your making time for us.


HIMES:  Thank you, Rachel. 


MADDOW:  All right.  Much more to get to tonight.  Stay with us. 




MADDOW:  We`re less than a month away from the next Democratic debate,

which will be in Georgia.  Whether you are tracking the repercussions of

the last debate or just the compounding circumstances of the whole small D

democratic process right now, it`s been really interesting over past week

or two to see which candidates are on the move. 


Over the weekend, it was Senator Bernie Sanders who held a huge rally in

New York.  He got a crowd of more than 25,000 people.  That`s the largest

crowd at a Democratic primary so far. 


Sanders also raised most money of anyone in the Democratic field last

quarter.  And he is now in the privileged position of celebrating a high-

octane endorsement from the very high-profile, very influential freshman

congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  So, that was the scene this

weekend in New York for Bernie Sanders. 


In Iowa, one candidate who seems to be on the move is Pete Buttigieg.  He

cracked the top tier in an early state poll for the first time today.  In a

new Suffolk University/”USA Today” poll puts Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 13

percent, in third place, right behind Joe Biden at 18 percent, Elizabeth

Warren at 17 percent.  That is a surge of seven points for Mr. Buttigieg

from June, which, of course, is real movement.  Again, that`s an Iowa poll. 


But if you`re looking for sort of multiple metrics for somebody who is

ascending, particularly coming out of the last debate, which may have been

a very important moment for her, you`ll want to check out what`s happening

with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.  In a new poll out today of the

senator`s home state, which is becoming something of a battleground state,

she beats President Trump in a head-to-head match up by the largest margin

of any candidate.  She beats him by 17 points. 


Next door in the all-important early state of Iowa, the senator also got

big local endorsements this weekend, including from State Rep Andy McKean,

who left the Iowa Republican Party this year and became a Democrat in a

very high-profile switch. 


In that same Suffolk/”USA Today” poll of Iowa, Klobuchar got one step

closer to qualifying for the November debate.  She`s already hit the

fundraising threshold.  Now with this Iowa poll as a qualifying poll for

her, she`s just two polls away from making that stage next month. 


Senator Amy Klobuchar joins us here live, next. 




MADDOW:  Joining us now is Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota,

2020 presidential candidate. 


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



Rachel.  It is great to be on. 


MADDOW:  You have had a busy few weeks.  You have been getting some good

poll numbers and you had a debate performance that you are proud of that

seems to have done you some good. 


KLOBUCHAR:  Yes.  We`ve had so much momentum since then.  We went on a

major bus trip in Iowa and before that, every county in New Hampshire. 


MADDOW:  Uh-huh.


KLOBUCHAR:  And I`ve been picking up more and more endorsements.  I have

the most endorsements of any of the candidates, for electeds and former

electeds in the state of Iowa. 


MADDOW:  Uh-huh.


KLOBUCHAR:  And since then, from regular people, just going into our

website at amyklobuchar.com, we have now raised $2 million since the



MADDOW:  Since the debate? 




MADDOW:  OK.  So in terms of your strategy here, you have not been up there

with Biden and Warren and Sanders as a top-tier candidate, but you have

been steady.  Again, as I`ve talked to you about this before, you have

said, basically, you`re on track that this is the way that you had planned

to do.  It`s sort of slow and steady wins the race. 




MADDOW:  Can you put some – can you put some detail on that?  Can you

explain to me how this works? 


KLOBUCHAR:  Well, yes.  I mean, I knew that I wasn`t the one that was going

to start out with all of the name identification.  And I also knew that I

would slowly but surely gain.  That`s what we`re doing.  And part of this

is that I believe in politics the way I think you should do it, which is,

meeting people, getting people onboard, and getting that kind of support

that`s going to last you until the end. 


It might not be a viral moment, but that`s just a moment.  What really

matters is can you build the coalition?  And for me, that is our fired up

base, but it`s also bringing in independents, who are more and more, as you

know from the 2016 election when we took back the House of Representatives

and won in all of these places, like the governor`s race in Wisconsin and

Michigan and Kansas. 


They came over to us.  And I think for them, it`s an economic check. 

They`re afraid of this guy.  They`re afraid of what he`s going to do to the

underpinnings of our economy and how things are still getting more

expensive, like pharmaceutical prices. 


But it`s also a value check.  And that`s why I have been so surprised at

the number of people that have showed up at our events who say, look, I

didn`t vote last time or I voted independent.  Or a few of them, one guy in

line in New Hampshire, everyone had “I`m a climate change voter” sticker. 

You know, “I`m a Supreme Court voter” sticker. 


And this guy comes up and he whispers, I voted for Donald Trump.  Don`t

tell anyone here.  And I go, no, I won`t, I won`t.  And he goes, I`m not

doing it again, you know?


MADDOW:  Is your pitch to Donald Trump voters pitch different than your

pitch to base voters?  I mean –


KLOBUCHAR:  Not really, no, because, you know, I am what I am.  And to me

this isn`t a strategy.  And it`s a way I have won big and brought people

with me and won up and down our ticket when I lead the ticket, and that is

by simply meeting people where they are, going not just where it is

comfortable, but where it`s uncomfortable, and making the pitch that we

clearly need someone who`s in it for the long haul when it comes to our

economy.  That we`ve got to match our education system with the jobs we

have now and in the future. 


That we need to respect the dignity of work – as my friend, Sherrod Brown

says – by making sure that people can get child care and can retire in

peace and can have a good family leave when something goes wrong.  That`s

what they need. 


And to talk about that in addition to wanting to have a president that when

they`re on TV don`t have to turn the volume down in front of your kids

because you don`t know what he`s going to say. 


So, I think she could do much better as a president and not do that.  And

that`s the point I`ve been making. 


MADDOW:  Stay right there.  We`ll be right back with Senator Amy Klobuchar

of Minnesota right after this. 




MADDOW:  Joining us once again is Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from

Minnesota, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, having a bit of a moment

right now in her campaign. 


Senator, let me ask you about something you were just talking about in

terms of reaching base voters also needing to reach the voters who didn`t

vote either for the Democrat or at all last time.  You have been stinging

in your critique for Medicare-for-All.  You described it as a pipe dream in

the last debate, fiercely critical, in particular, of Senator Warren for

not talking about how she was going to pay for it. 


It`s entirely possible that one of the people who likes Medicare-for-All is

going to be the nominee or would be your running mate if you`re on the

ticket.  Have you given the Republicans basically a bunch of great talking

points against something that a lot of Democrats like? 


KLOBUCHAR:  No, I don`t think so.  I`m open to all ideas.  I am just being

very focused on what I think we can get done and what`s the best idea right

now and that idea to me is the public option. 


And think about what that would mean.  It`s what Barack Obama wanted to do

to begin with.  It does not trash the Affordable Care Act.  It builds on it

by simply saying, OK, we`re going to have an option that`s non-profit for a

change, and it can be Medicare/Medicaid, but what it means is that you will

be able to have a less expensive good option to compete with private

insurance, and then people can start buying into it using their Affordable

Care Act subsidies.


And, yes, I have shown how I`m going to pay for it and how I`m going to pay

for everything I`ve proposed, including mental health treatment and long-

term care, improving that, because I think that`s really important right

now and that`s my difference.  And I know that Senator Warren said that

she`s going to come out to explain how she is going to pay for it.  I think

that`s good. 


I just think we have a president right now that has added trillions of

dollars to the debt by giving money to his rich friends, that tax bill when

he goes down to Mar-a-Lago and says, hey, I just made you a lot richer.  To

me, that`s the best political ad of all because he basically has shown

where his heart is and what he`s doing with the policies.  And that`s why I

think it`s just important that we say how we`re going to pay for things. 


MADDOW:  I think we`re in this a little bit of a trap, though, in terms of

what you care about with policy because Democratic voters, I think voters

across the country of all stripes really, really care about health care and

it being so expensive. 




MADDOW:  And about health care delivery.  Big question.  It`s really,

really a top priority issue. 


And Republicans have been very busy trying to take health coverage away

from many Americans as possible. 


KLOBUCHAR:  Agree.  Right now in Texas in a lawsuit. 


MADDOW:  Democrats, on the other hand, are all in agreement that there

should be universal coverage. 


KLOBUCHAR:  We are. 


MADDOW:  Because Democrats are willing to talk about it, you guys spend all

your time –


KLOBUCHAR:  Good point, right. 


MADDOW:  – fighting about it, tearing each other down about it. 


KLOBUCHAR:  Good point.  I try to point out when I can – and one of the

reasons I came out strong on my plan in showing the differences is there

have been some statements like you don`t fight – you`re not going to fight

for it, or statements – and my whole point was there is not a monopoly on

good ideas.  We can have different ideas. 


And I think we`ve been very clear what unites us is stronger than what

divides us.  Bernie and I have worked together.  We`ve done joint

amendments on pharmaceuticals, on bringing less expensive drugs in from

safe countries like Canada, or I lead the bill and a number of my

colleagues up on that stage are on it to allow – lift that ban to allow

Medicare to negotiate less expensive drugs. 


What happened was pharma got that provision written into that law.  That`s

what it says.  They can`t negotiate.  It`s crazy. 


So, I think in the end, yes, there`s vigorous debates.  That`s what our

party`s about.  But I still believe there`s respect on that stage.  I

certainly respect my colleagues. 


MADDOW:  Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, it`s great to have you here.


KLOBUCHAR:  All right.  Thanks. 


MADDOW:  Good to see you.


KLOBUCHAR:  Great to see you, Rachel. 


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




MADDOW:  Little breaking news before we wrap tonight.  The House

Impeachment Committees just announced they`re starting to schedule weekend

proceedings.  Weekend depositions.  Starting with Phillip Reeker, who is

the acting assistant secretary of European and Eurasian affairs at the

State Department. 


New report from “Bloomberg News” said that although Reeker had been

initially scheduled to testify the day after tomorrow, on Wednesday, now

his deposition is expected this weekend, on Saturday. 


We did know that several depositions were being rescheduled because of

memorials planned for Congressman Elijah Cummings later this week.  But

this is the first report that we`ve had that the House impeachment

proceedings intend to start stretching through the weekend. 


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had alerted the Republicans in the

Senate that they could ultimately end up working six days a week on

impeachment after the House gives them articles to vote on, but it sounds

like the house is going to weekend work already. 


Watch this space. 


That does it for us tonight.  We`ll 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