GOP quiet on NYT report Transcript 1/26/18 The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell

Michael Wolff, Jill Wine-Banks, Ronald Klain, Matthew Miller, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin

Date: January 26, 2018
Guest: Michael Wolff, Jill Wine-Banks, Ronald Klain, Matthew Miller, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin

O`DONNELL. Good evening, Lawrence.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Joy, and I will see you
tomorrow on your show.

REID: Absolutely.

O`DONNELL: And, oh, I really enjoyed hearing you speak with so much
authority about 1968 when you were not alive.


O`DONNELL: But I know where you got that. I think you read a –

REID: I read an amazing book about it by somebody you might know. His
name rhymes with Lawrence O`Donnell.

O`DONNELL: Still available in bookstores. But you have to climb through
the piles of Michael Wolff`s book to find my one copy of mine somewhere.


REID: And it`s worth that climb.

O`DONNELL: “Playing with Fire.” It has the word fire in the title. It
should be selling.

REID: “Playing with Fire.”

O`DONNELL: Yes. It should be selling.

REID: It`s definitely fantastic. You know what, I`m being honest. It`s a
fantastic book and you should all read it because 1968, most momentous year
in modern American history, I argue, Mr. O`Donnell.

O`DONNELL: Joy, we actually have Michael Wolff here with us tonight in
exclusive interview. His first public reaction to what we learned
yesterday that the President ordered the firing of the special prosecutor.

REID: Amazing. Well, I cannot wait for that. We will be watching.

O`DONNELL: Thank you, Joy.

REID: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Well, last night the obstruction of justice investigation of
the President by the Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, took on a new and
dramatic dimension when “The New York Times” reported that the President
ordered the firing of the Special Prosecutor in June and that the White
House Counsel, Don McGahn, refused to carry out that order and threatened
to resign if the Special Prosecutor was fired.

Here is every word the President said about that important story today.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President why did you fire Robert Mueller? Why
did you want to fire Robert Mueller?

news. Typical “New York Times” fake story.


O`DONNELL: In the Nixon era, that`s what they called a nondenial denial.

Joining us tonight for an exclusive interview with his first public
reaction to the reports that the President tried to fire the Special
Prosecutor is the author of the best-selling book in the world right now.

Michael Wolff, the author of “The New York Times” best-seller, “Fire and
Fury, Inside the Trump White House.”

And, Michael, first of all, thank you very much for coming back.

Thank you for having me.

O`DONNELL: Your book is filled with versions of the President complaining
about the Special Prosecutor, making references to wanting to fire the
Special Prosecutor.

The Special Prosecutor has talked to Reince Priebus. The Special
Prosecutor is going to talk to Steve Bannon, who you spent a lot of time
talking to. The Special Prosecutor has been talking to many of your
sources in this book.

Has the Special Prosecutor reached out to you to talk to you about either
the firing of the Special Prosecutor or any other elements of this story?

WOLFF: He has not.

O`DONNELL: And if the Special Prosecutor does want to interview you, would
you cooperate with that?

WOLFF: Good question, and I don`t know the answer. But I think that the
answer is, yes, because I have nothing to hide. Everything that I know is
in the book.

O`DONNELL: What about the sources that are – there are many sources
revealed in the book and there`s many quotes that are attributed to people,
but there`s an awful lot of unattributed quotes.

WOLFF: Right.

O`DONNELL: If the Special Prosecutor would open this book and point to –

WOLFF: And say who is the source here –

O`DONNELL: Who said that?

WOLFF: – and if it`s a source that I can`t reveal, no, I clearly would

O`DONNELL: And you know there`s no privilege there. You would have to –
the Special Prosecutor could hold you in contempt, and you could end up in
jail by refusing to answer that.

WOLFF: You know, I`ve had a lot of threats over the last few weeks. You
know, we take them as they come.

O`DONNELL: OK. I want to go to a passage about Don McGahn that`s in your
book because, I have to the say, for readers of this book, the detail that
the President specifically ordered the firing is just one more little piece
that fits into this story completely. And the characters behave in the way
we understand them from your book.

Here is a reference to Don McGahn at page 212 of your book.

McGahn tried to explain that, in fact, Comey himself was not running the
Russia investigation, that without Comey the investigation would proceed
anyway. McGahn, the lawyer whose job was necessarily to issue cautions,
was a frequent target of Trump rages.

Typically, these would begin as a kind of exaggeration or acting and then
devolve into the real thing: uncontrollable, vein-popping, ugly face
tantrum stuff. It got primal. Now, the President`s denunciations focused
in a vicious fury on McGahn and his cautions about Comey.

And that`s just Comey. So we can presume that something similar to that
went on with Mueller, with the attempt to fire Mueller.

WOLFF: Let me give a slightly different context than “The New York Times”
gives. “The New York Times” makes it sound like Trump thought about this,
sat down, determined that this was – that he should fire – that he should
fire Mueller, that he should act on this, and then told McGahn to carry
this out.

And that`s not untrue, but the difference is he does this constantly.
Every day, the President is saying he`s going to fire somebody. Anybody
who he feels is – has annoyed him, irritated him, gotten in his way,
disagreed with him is going to be fired.

The firing of Mueller was talked about by Trump, especially in this June,
July period, before his legal team really got in and took over. This
became an obsession with the President. He had to get rid of Mueller.

Now, but an obsession with this president becomes – instead of an order,
it becomes kind of like wallpaper. It just goes on and on and on. He
repeats and repeats and repeats.

And is it serious? Is it just him spouting off? Ultimately, that`s what
the Special Prosecutor will have to decide. And it`s a key, key thing
because the Special Prosecutor has to prove intent.

If he`s just a crazy person – which, in part, he is – it`s going to be
very hard to prove intent. So was there a moment in which he directed this
to happen? Well, actually, yes, but there were hundreds of moments in
which he does that and in which everybody sort of deflects.

And, equally, you know, the times has McGahn threatening to quit. McGahn
has probably threatened to quit a hundred times.

I mean, actually, what they say in – even now, McGahn would like to get
out of there. They just can`t find somebody else to replace him, so they
have to come and essentially, each time, beg him to stay.

O`DONNELL: You have Bannon in here saying – quoting him now and
attributing it to him. It is not one of the unacknowledged quotes here.
It says – Bannon is saying to you – if he fires Mueller, it just brings
the impeachment quicker.

Was that the widespread view in the White House?

WOLFF: Completely. I mean, everybody believed firing Mueller would be
suicidal. And everybody had to deal with this every day because it was
always fire Mueller, we got to fire Mueller, how can we fire Mueller, get
rid of this guy.

And again, this was kind of regarded as something less than real. It was
just the stuff that comes out of the President`s mouth uncontrollably and
often meaninglessly.

O`DONNELL: So in that sense, you`re describing a workplace in which they
don`t take the guy saying this stuff seriously to the point where they
actually have to execute it. But if he pushes it up to an order, then they
have to issue threats to resign?

WOLFF: Yes. The question is – but even that, that`s always going on, the
efforts to resign because nobody wants to be there.


WOLFF: So it`s this – it`s a kind of – “The New York Times” curiously
makes this sound normal. Even though –

O`DONNELL: What do you mean normal?

WOLFF: Well, even if – it makes it sound like there is a man who has
thought through something and made a decision. There are no decisions
here. It`s just blather.

And when does blather – and, of course, blather can become a decision.
The Comey firing. Nobody expected the Comey firing to happen, and then it
happened because he did it on his own. He just went rogue and suddenly, it

So I believe that everybody expected and continues to expect Mueller to be
fired. But how that happens is – it`s a kind of a three-dimensional thing
because, every day, he`s firing Mueller. So how does it become – how does
that go from this kind of, you know, the presidential gas to actually

O`DONNELL: It`s making that case for his lawyers to try to make that
presentation of the character – is made virtually impossible because of
his job. Meaning, a prosecutor and the people looking into this aren`t
going to believe that a president is just that nutty and flaky and
constantly saying things that aren`t real.

WOLFF: I don`t know if that`s true. I mean, I think that is what Mueller
– they ultimately – that will be the ultimate question. Was there intent
here or is – or was this just daily stupidity, really, incompetence,

O`DONNELL: There`s a passage in here about the – everybody in the White
House believing that if the investigation moved long-term into the Trump
financial transactions, that that would be disastrous for the President.
And the President seemed to confirm that by having that be the thing that
made him keep saying, I can fire Mueller, I can fire Mueller.

WOLFF: Completely. And then at one point, of course, he says – he gives
an interview to “The New York Times,” and he draws the line. He says,
Mueller can`t go here. You know, can`t go into his family finances.

And, you know, Bannon then pointed out to me – afterward, Bannon makes
this noise, err err (ph). He says, OK, let`s just tell the prosecutor what
he can`t look at.

O`DONNELL: Yes, yes. Yes. Imagine for us, as you know this character,
you know this Trump character – and I think it conveyed him better than
anyone has conveyed him because you get these dimensions that are very
difficult to capture, all these weird dimensions.

Imagine him in an interview with the Special Prosecutor when the Special
Prosecutor says, why did you order Don McGahn to have me fired? What does
Trump say to that?

WOLFF: I think it`s almost unimaginable. And from the point of view of
the prosecutor, it`s both – you`re both going to get things that are
immediately and stunningly incriminating, but you`re also going to have to
step back and say this is so stunningly incriminating that maybe it`s not
incriminating. Maybe he`s just –


WOLFF: And that`s where we are.


WOLFF: Plain –

O`DONNELL: The insanity defense.

WOLFF: – stupid.

O`DONNELL: The stupidity or insanity defense. I`ve been asking lawyers
all week. What happens if the President`s lawyers convince him, you cannot
be interviewed by the FBI? You`ll commit perjury. It will be a disaster.

The Special Prosecutor then subpoenas him and the President simply refuses
to accept subpoena service, refuses to respond to a subpoena? Is that
imaginable to you, that the President would simply refuse to respond to a
subpoena, and if he`s held in contempt by a court, he will refuse to
respond to that?

WOLFF: I don`t know. I mean, it`s never happened before. So what happens
then? I have no idea. I would say, just because I`m a reasonable person,
it can`t happen and eventually, he has to respond.

You know, and I remember Bannon saying, you know, he would go in there –
the President – and will say, I have executive privilege, executive
privilege. And Bannon would say, no, you don`t. We`ve gone through this
before. Presidents have to testify when they`re subpoenaed.

O`DONNELL: I put out on Twitter invitations for people to suggest
questions, and one of the biggest questions they were suggesting was about
Nikki Haley.

Let`s listen to an interview that Nikki Haley did today that apparently was
– this part of the interview was provoked by something you said last week.
Let`s listen to this.


comedian and television host Bill Maher that he`s pretty sure – not sure
enough to write in his book, that the President is having an affair and
that close readers of his book would be able to figure out who the
President is having an affair with.

So Wolff writes in the book that, quote, the President had been spending a
notable amount of private time with Haley – that`s Nikki Haley – on Air
Force One and was seen to be grooming her for a national political future.

I don`t think you exactly have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what he
is insinuating, but I`d like to get your response to that insinuation.

absolutely not true. It is highly offensive and it`s disgusting.

You know, if you look at what my – and I have said this before. It amazes
me what people will do and the lies they will say for money and power. And
in politics, it`s rampant.

But here you have a man who`s basically saying I`ve been spending a lot of
time on Air Force One. I have literally been on Air Force One once and
there were several people in the room when I was there.

He says that I`m talking a lot with the President in the Oval about my
political future. I`ve never talked once to the President about my future,
and I am never alone with him.


O`DONNELL: Do you believe that the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
is having an affair with the President?

WOLFF: Well, what I know is in the book.

O`DONNELL: What`s your reaction to what you just heard Nikki Haley say?

WOLFF: Well, I don`t know who the reporter is who was, in fact, making the

O`DONNELL: Oh, so you`re saying – you invited people to read between the
lines publicly.

WOLFF: Read between the lines.

O`DONNELL: And you`re –

WOLFF: If I knew it –

O`DONNELL: Are you saying she`s –

WOLFF: If I knew it, I would have said it.

O`DONNELL: And is she reading between the right lines, that reporter who
brought this question to Nikki Haley?

WOLFF: And is she reading – I`m not going to go further than what`s in
the book.

O`DONNELL: Do you think it`s reasonable that this reporter brought this
question to Nikki Haley based on what she read in the book?

WOLFF: Oh, I think all questions are reasonable.

O`DONNELL: That`s so – but you did say you believed the President is
currently having an affair. Not in the book, but you said that publicly.

WOLFF: I believe the President – well, you know, it`s – what is an
affair? Remember that question?

O`DONNELL: Well, let`s put it this way, sex with someone who`s not his

WOLFF: I believe there – a number of reliable and, I would say,
authoritative people within the White House have, yes, suggested that.

O`DONNELL: And Nikki Haley, in saying it`s absolutely not true, it`s
highly offensive, it`s disgusting, seems to agree that the implication is
that it`s her.

WOLFF: She seems to be, yes. I mean, I don`t know.

O`DONNELL: You`ve just –

WOLFF: It is literally what`s in the book. If you want to –


WOLFF: If you want to infer, I –

O`DONNELL: Well, I do want to – I just want to clarify for the public
record. You never actually said Nikki Haley.

WOLFF: I did not.

O`DONNELL: You never said any name.

WOLFF: I did not.

O`DONNELL: So anyone who has brought Nikki Haley into this has done this
through their own reading?

WOLFF: Exactly.

O`DONNELL: Going back to the obstruction case with the President. As you
hear these various scenarios being played out, and you hear John Dowd, in
one of the most interesting comments of the week, saying it`s not the
President who`s going to decide. I am going to decide whether the
President agrees to do this interview.

Do you think that`s how this will happen, that John Dowd will say to the
President, yes, you can or no, you can`t do this interview?

WOLFF: Well, I think he will but this is Donald Trump.


WOLFF: He will do what he wants to do. And it`s very likely he will
decide, I can go in there and charm these guys. I can sell them.

O`DONNELL: Michael Wolff, thank you very much for joining us again
tonight. Really appreciate it.

WOLFF: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Coming up, our panel is here, joining us. They will consider everything
that`s developed in this, some of them taking notes during Michael Wolff`s
conversation right here. We`ll see what they think the Special Prosecutor
is going to react to there.

Also with us tonight, Congressman Adam Schiff, the Ranking Member of the
House Intelligence Committee. He will join us. That`s coming up.



WOLFF: The firing of Mueller was talked about by Trump, especially in this
June, July period, before his legal team really got in and took over. This
became an obsession with the President. He had to get rid of Mueller.

Now, but an obsession with this president becomes – instead of an order,
it becomes kind of like wallpaper. It just goes on and on and on. He
repeats and repeats and repeats.


O`DONNELL: That`s the instant replay of my interview with Michael Wolff.

Joining us now, Ron Klain, the former chief of staff to Vice Presidents Joe
Biden and Al Gore and former senior aide to President Obama. He`s also the
former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and he was the chief
of staff to Attorney General Janet Reno.

We`re also joined by Jill Wine-Banks, former Assistant Watergate Special
Prosecutor and an MSNBC contributor; and Matt Miller, former spokesman for
Attorney General Eric Holder and an MSNBC contributor.

And, Jill, I want to go to you because my discussion with Michael, I wish
we had a lawyer at the table with us because there were moments there when
he talked about what the Special Prosecutor`s going to find from this
witness, Donald Trump, and possibly from others.

That there was just this kind of vague blanket of noise that he described,
ultimately, as wallpaper that was the fire Mueller wallpaper and that –
was that really a specific demand to fire Mueller? And Michael was
speculating the Prosecutor is going to have to get inside the President`s
head to figure out what his actual intent was in those statements.

What was your reaction to that?

intent was one of the more interesting parts of that interview. He also
said that the President likes to say, you`re fired, and he does it all the
time. He apparently learned his lesson on “The Apprentice” all too well.

But as far as intent, it`s always tricky for a lawyer to be able to prove
intent. But in this case, there are so many acts in furtherance of a
particular goal that a jury can infer from that intent.

And the other problem is if he didn`t intent the corrupt firing of Mueller
and, let`s face it, of Comey, then if Wolff is correct, he sounds like the
alternative is the man is crazy.

And if he`s crazy and incompetent and stupid, which are the words that
Michael Wolff used, then we have to look at the 25th Amendment. And the
Cabinet and Congress have to stand up and do their duty and say the man is

So those were the – seemed to me the two choices he was saying, is it`s
going to hard to prove intent because he`s crazy. And that leads us,
instead of impeachment, possibly to the 25th Amendment. So either way,
it`s a lose for Trump, it seems to me.

O`DONNELL: And the – in Michael Wolff`s book, “Fire and Fury,” the 25th
Amendment is mentioned specifically by Steve Bannon. And Steve Bannon
gives it a 33 percent chance, in his calculations, of it actually being
used against this president for exactly this kind of stuff.

Ron Klain, Jill just said a jury can infer intent which is what I was
thinking when I was listening to Michael.


O`DONNELL: If this was a normal criminal case we`re talking about, the
issue that Michael Wolff was talking about is, does he really mean it?
That would be left to a jury.

With the President, it`s not clear that this gets brought to a jury. It
might be brought to Congress. And then in an impeachment proceeding,
that`s one of the things that could be left for Congress to decide and to
argue about.

KLAIN: Yes, look, Donald Trump may be crazy, but he is not legally insane.


KLAIN: And the standard on that is very, very high. That`s not going to
get him off the hook on this. And I actually think – with all due respect
to Mr. Wolff, I think his legal analysis of this is kind of backwards.

And Jill pointed out that, first of all, there are some very specific acts
of obstruction. He wasn`t just spouting off when he actually did fire FBI
Director Comey, when he actually did instruct a false statement to be
produced by Donald Jr. about that Trump Tower meeting from Air – when he
ordered it from Air Force One. So there are a lot of specific acts.

And what Mr. Wolff calls the wallpaper I actually think is powerful
evidence of, indeed, intent. The fact that Trump is constantly saying, we
ought to get rid of Mueller, we ought to go do this, we ought to go do
that, just shows a focus on stopping this investigation.

That`s what this is about, not about conflicts of interest or supervising
the Justice Department. It is about stopping the investigation. That
would be powerful evidence of his intent.

This is not someone who acts like an innocent person, Lawrence, and that`s
the most important thing, I think, that comes out of the overall picture
Wolff paints.

O`DONNELL: Matt, I was struck by that term, wallpaper, that Michael Wolff
used. I think it tells us a lot.

And if you`ve ever listened to the wiretaps of mafia headquarters in New
York or in Boston or different places where they wiretap them, the
wallpaper was, we need to get rid of that guy, we need to get rid of that
guy. And at some point, that guy would be gotten rid of, with or without
necessarily a specific order on those mafia wiretaps.

But, Matt, you`re all taking notes while Michael Wolff was talking. Your
reaction to what you heard?

OF JUSTICE: I think I was really struck by, you know, what I think he
called the wallpaper and what we see.

We all – what we see in this and in other reports is that the picture of
Donald Trump constantly kind of straining against the legal and ethical
complaints of – constraints of office. You know, constantly kind of
lashing out against prosecutors and FBI agents who want to just pursue the
rule of law.

And so, you know, you see him, you know, complaining about it, but you also
see him taking official acts. I mean, that was the thing that was clear in
“The New York Times” story from last night. It was when he crossed the
line, not just from complaining about Bob Mueller but actually issuing an
order to fire him.

Now, that order wasn`t obeyed, but under the obstruction of justice
statute, you don`t actually have to be successful. You just have to take
an action where you intend to obstruct justice to be guilty of a crime.

And when, you know, you mentioned the wiretaps that – you know, in mafia
cases we`re able to look at and see, you know, actually listen to this
conversations. We don`t have wiretaps, obviously, in this case, but what
Bob Mueller has is conversation after conversation that aides to Donald
Trump can reproduce because he`s taken all those aides. He`s brought them
in for interviews.

And to the extent Donald Trump ever said something like, you know, if James
Comey doesn`t end this Russia investigation, I`m going to fire him, you
know, Donald – Bob Mueller likely has talked to an aide about that
conversation, and that is damning evidence as to his intent.

O`DONNELL: Matt, Ron, Jill, please stay with us, everyone. We`re going to
squeeze in a break here.

Congressman Adam Schiff – he is the Ranking Member of the House
Intelligence Committee – will join us next.


O`DONNELL: Here`s what happened in the House of Representatives today when
reporters tried to ask the Republican chair of the House Judiciary
Committee about the President trying to fire the Special Prosecutor.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s your reaction to reports that President Trump
ordered Special Counsel Mueller fired?

here for a hearing on copyright, and I don`t have anything to comment on
any other issues beyond that. Thank you.


O`DONNELL: Copyright law is, of course, in the view of the Judiciary
Committee, one of their lowest priority issues. But, today, for
Republicans, it was more important than the most important story in
Washington, the President ordering the firing of the Special Counsel.

Republican Congressman Charlie Dent, who has given up on continuing his
congressional career and decided not to run for re-election, is free to say
things like this today: I believe now that this revelation has been made
public that there will be increasing pressure to protect Mueller.

Joining us now, Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat from California, the
Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. I really
appreciate it. I want to get to – I got to say, I mean, as a House
watcher, I think you can – you and I probably have never heard someone
say, I can`t talk about the most important issue of the day, I have to go
to a copyright hearing. I think that`s a new one.

ON INTELLIGENCE: Well, it is hard to top copyright in terms of interest.


O`DONNELL: Yes. I want to get your reaction, actually, to something that
Michael Wolff just said on this show because it`s an issue that, in a
criminal case, would be left to a jury and in an impeachment case, would be
brought to you. And that is, if there is an obstruction of justice case,
that is presented to the House of Representatives.

And one of the elements of an obstruction of justice case is that the
President ordered the firing of Robert Mueller. What Michael Wolff just
said is he was saying that all the time. He was saying “fire Mueller” all
the time, “I want to fire Mueller” all the time.

Michael Wolff said it was like wallpaper, and so people around him did not
take it seriously. And it might, in the President`s mind, never have been
a specific order. And since it was never carried out, he may not believe
that he ever issued such an order, no matter what people quote him as

SCHIFF: Well, apparently, Don McGahn took it seriously and was willing to
resign rather than carry it out, so this doesn`t sound like it was an idle
comment. I wouldn`t describe this as wallpaper based on what “The New York
Times” or “Washington Post” and others have reported, but rather a fixation
that goes to the President`s intent.

What really leaps out at me about this disclosure, this new report, is how
much in common it has with the Comey situation. With the firing of Comey,
what the President had at his disposal were memos from Rod Rosenstein and
from Jeff Sessions that provided a pretext, another explanation, to give to
the public for why Comey was being fired. That is, he treated Hillary
Clinton unfairly.

Now, that is obviously not very plausible. And, of course, the one who
made it abundantly clear that was not the real motivation was the President

But similarly, here, with the attempt to fire Bob Mueller, you had these
explanations ginned up for him whether it was over golf dues, that Bob
Mueller had a dispute with the golf club over – or it was over, you know,
some – the fact that the Mueller firm worked for Jared Kushner even though
Mueller didn`t.

So this is another effort to produce pretext to conceal the real reason for
getting rid of Mueller. And that does go to intent, the key issue in an
obstruction case.

One final point, Lawrence, is the fact that the President wanted so badly
to get rid of Jeff Sessions. And why? Because Jeff Sessions recused
himself. And why did that bother the President? Because it led to the
appointment of Bob Mueller.

That wasn`t about dues at the golf club. That was about the President
perceiving the Russia investigation as a threat and wanting to act on that.

O`DONNELL: And in the Sessions case, you also have Michael Wolff and other
sources quoting the President as saying things like where`s my Roy Cohn and
using the word, “protect.” Who`s going to protect me, expecting the
Attorney General to protect him. And it strikes me that the use of that
word, “protect,” would be of special interest in an obstruction case.

SCHIFF: I think that`s exactly right. The President made clear that what
he believes he`s entitled to in an Attorney General is not someone who is
loyal to the department, not someone who is loyal to the American people,
but someone who is loyal to him. And not on just a garden-variety issue
but on the Russia investigation, which is paramount for him.

So I think all of this does go to intent. And certainly, Bob Mueller, this
“New York Times” and “The Washington Post” story is not news to him because
he`s been interviewing all these people in the White House and around the

And I think Ron is exactly right, there`s probably a lot that we don`t know
that the Special Counsel does that relates to the issue of the President`s

O`DONNELL: How secure is Bob Mueller`s job, do you think, in the view of
Congress at this point? I know that when he was first appointed, you got
universal acclaim for him, especially on the Senate side.

There wasn`t a single Republican senator who had a negative word to say
about him and, in fact, most of them were gushing praise about Robert
Mueller. That has quieted down. You don`t hear that.

And today, no screams of outrage from any Republicans in Congress, no one
rushing to a microphone to say this, absolutely, must not happen. He
absolutely must not be fired. Has Robert Mueller`s support among
Republicans in Congress collapsed? Could he be fired?

SCHIFF: You know, I wouldn`t say that it`s collapsed, but you certainly
see a weakening of the spine of many of the folks in the GOP in Congress
who – when the first suggestions were made by Ruddy and others that the
President could fire Mueller, and we had no idea that, actually, the
President tried to fire him, you had a ground swell that was in favor of
bipartisan legislation that would secure Mueller`s job, that would provide
a right of appeal by Mueller if he were fired.

No one has acted on that in the majority. That legislation is still
languishing. And what has happened in the interim, frankly, is very
concerning. And that is, there has been an escalation of attacks on
Mueller in the kind of right wing blogosphere as well as on Fox, and there
has been a wholesale attack on the FBI in order to discredit the

All of that is a signal to the White House, unfortunately, that, hey, they
might shrug if he took the step of firing Mueller. People need to speak
out now. People that are asked what they think about this, they need to
speak out now.

And it`s more important than ever for Republicans in Congress to speak out
and say, this is a red line that must not be crossed, that would provoke a
constitutional crisis that would bring down this administration. Don`t go

Because, Lawrence, I think, depending on where the Special Counsel
investigation goes to – if the Special Counsel, for example, is looking at
money laundering, as I believe he should – you could see another outburst,
outrage, by the President that results in another order to fire Bob Mueller
and the whole cascade of events that would bring about.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you very much for joining us
tonight. Really appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Does the President still want to fire Robert Mueller? Michael
Wolff believes the President has not stopped thinking about firing Robert
Mueller. More on that next.



INTELLIGENCE: Bob Mueller should be allowed to finish his job, and this
President should not be allowed to fire him just on a whim. I agree, in
this case, with the President`s lawyer. If the President had carried
through on that threat, it would have created chaos.

The actions of this President seem to not help his case that there`s no
there there. These are not the actions of an individual who`s got nothing
to hide.


O`DONNELL: “The Wall Street Journal” reports President Trump`s legal team
has been looking studying a 1990s federal court ruling that could be the
basis for delaying, limiting, or avoiding an interview with Special Counsel
Robert Mueller.

In that ruling involving an independent counsel seeking White House records
related to then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, the court ruled that
prosecutors hoping to overcome arguments of executive and presidential
privilege must show that such information contains important evidence that
isn`t available elsewhere.

Also, “Foreign Policy” is reporting on how the White House war on the FBI
was born. President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise
and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning
that those specific officials were likely to be witnesses against him as
part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller`s investigation.

Back with us, Ron Klain, Jill Wine-Banks, and Matt Miller.

And joining the discussion now, Jennifer Rubin, a conservative opinion
writer at “The Washington Post” and an MSNBC contributor.

And, Jennifer, so “Foreign Policy” is reporting tonight that in June,
which, of course, is when “The New York Times” reported last night the
President actually ordered the firing of Robert Mueller – this very stormy
June in the White House – the President is telling people, we now have to
attack the FBI, the higher-ranking people in the FBI because the Special
Prosecutor is going to use them apparently to corroborate James Comey`s

law school. Find all the bits of evidence of obstruction of justice that
you can, and the person who does the most gets the A.


RUBIN: Well, we can all get the A because there is the attempt to get rid
of the Attorney General. There was the successful attempt to get rid of
the FBI Director. There was the attempt to get rid of Andrew McCabe.
There was the attempt now to smear the FBI. It goes on and on and on.

You know, I don`t think this excuse that he is somehow, you know, a
babbling fool is going to get him off the hook.

You know, for one thing, he told us, you know, he got a 30 out of 30 on the
mental exam. He can a rhino from a lion, so, you know, he`s in tiptop
shape. He has got a great brain, so the President is not going to allow
himself to be gotten off the hook by the crazy defense.

And I think this is an embarrassment of riches, frankly, for the Special
Prosecutor. There are so many bits of evidence of intent. He wants to
cripple, he wants to decapitate this investigation because he, obviously,
is afraid of what they will find.

O`DONNELL: Ron Klain, on using the Mike Espy case, I believe that that was
all about records as opposed to testimony. And when you`re trying to use
executive privilege and you`re saying, you know, you can only have this if
you have no other way of getting it, that`s usually something that`s
applying to records as opposed to actual testimony.

KLAIN: That`s true, Lawrence, and I`d go farther. In that case, on page
28, it says very clearly that this would be a very different case if the
person under investigation was a senior White House aide. Oops, here we

And then it goes on further and says, in such a case, it would be easy for
the prosecutor to prove a need for the subpoenaed information. So I do not
think that the President and his lawyers will get any real protection from
this Espy case.

I think it`s a little bit of a fantasy effort on them to think that this
Espy case is going to help them. The court specifically carved out the
exact situation we have here and said, in that kind of situation, it should
be easy for the prosecutors to get the information they want.

O`DONNELL: Jill, this strikes me as the kind of thing you tell a client
who is desperate to hear there`s something. There`s just something you can
hang your hat on, and maybe they`ll get a hearing day out of a court over

WINE-BANKS: Well, they might be able to delay it enough to get a hearing,
but the Espy case is really not that different than U.S. v. Nixon, which
made it very clear that the President cannot avoid producing evidence if it
is about a crime. And that`s exactly what Mueller is looking at.

He`s not looking at something that has to do with political advice or
policy advice, any kind of advice that he might have gotten from staff. It
is about, how do I commit a crime? How do I obstruct this case? How do I
stop the investigation?

That is, clearly, within the purview of what the Supreme Court said the
President must comply with. So I think this would be very unwise for the
lawyers of the President to be holding out this false hope. I agree with
Ron that this is not going to get them very far.

O`DONNELL: Matt Miller, of course, the Special Prosecutor knows much more
than we do about all of this.

And since these two stories we`re talking about here happened in June, I`m
wondering if the Special Prosecutor is looking at evidence tonight and has
testimony from White House staff saying the President ordered the firing of
the Special Prosecutor in June, and, in June, the President told us we had
to start attacking the higher-ranking people in the FBI because they will
be used in the investigation against the President.

Those two stories could be coming together in this overall investigation.

MILLER: Yes, I assume that`s right. I assume he – he obviously knows
much more than we do, I think. One of the lessons of “The New York Times”
story from last night.

Look, all the exculpatory evidence for the President is basically all out
there. We know all of that evidence. The President and the White House
have been very clear about making their public defense for the President`s

The evidence that`s damaging to him, we found out last night. A very
significant new piece of evidence. And it raises the question, how much
more is out there that we don`t know?

And I think if you kind of read between the lines of that story, you know,
when you talk about obstruction of justice, it`s not just the President
that has potential legal liability here. There are all the aides that
could have – you know, that could have participated in one of these
schemes who could be indicted for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

You look at that story last night and you see Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus,
and Don McGahn – all of whom share the same lawyer – all of whom are
portrayed in this story as, at least in this instance when the President
wanted to fire Bob Mueller, standing up and saying no.

I think you read that as three aides, you know, trying to make clear that
if there is an attempt to bring obstruction of justice charges, here`s at
least one instance where they were standing no and can`t be held liable.

O`DONNELL: According to Michael Wolff, the President has not given up on
the dream, if you want to call it that, of firing Robert Mueller.

When we come back after this break, let`s go through the scenario if the
President actually does fire Robert Mueller. We`ll be right back.



TRUMP: No collusion. There`s no collusion.


TRUMP: Now, they`re saying, oh, well, did he fight back?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But what does that –

TRUMP: You fight back.


TRUMP: You fight back. Oh, it`s obstruction.


O`DONNELL: Jennifer Rubin, if the President does continue to move against
Mueller and eventually pulls it off – meaning he fires Rod Rosenstein, he
does whatever he has to do in the Justice Department to get someone there
to fire the Special Prosecutor – will Republicans in Congress take a stand
against that?

RUBIN: I have come to the conclusion that they will not. Now, firing
Mueller, of course, doesn`t end the investigation. The FBI goes on.
Whoever replaces Rosenstein can replace the Special Prosecutor. That was
the lesson of Watergate, simply firing Archibald Cox did not end the

So the investigation will, frankly, go on, but will Congress do anything?
No. And in fact, it`s not simply that they`re being passive. They are now

You have someone like Devin Nunes, running around trying to create
distraction, trying to smear the FBI. You know who is colluding? It`s the
White House and Devin Nunes against the FBI and against the Special

So that group of people who tolerate that behavior, someone like Mr.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan who allows Nunes to retain his post, is not
going to take up impeachment. These people are not going to do anything.

And we may stumble along until we get to the midterms and then the people
of the United States can decide whether they want enablers there or whether
they want a Democratic Congress.

So I think we keep hoping for them to kind of figure it out or hoping them
to – it will be the straw that breaks the camel`s back. It isn`t.
Nothing is. They live in Earth 2. They`re in the world of Devin Nunes,
and they are not, I think, unfortunately, going to come around and do their
constitutional duty.

O`DONNELL: Ron Klain, if the President reached down far enough and found
someone after firing Rod Rosenstein, whoever it takes, and got – and said
to that person, you`re going to be, you know, the Acting Deputy Attorney
General. You`re going to be empowered to fire the Special Prosecutor, and
I also want you to disband the investigation, just completely disband it.

Could he do that?

KLAIN: Well, he can certainly try. I mean, we know that, in fact, the
President did a version of this when he fired Sally Yates early on in the
administration, reached down far enough to find someone who would do it and
got it done. And I assume that`s what he`ll do.

But I think Jennifer is right. Ultimately, you can`t make this all go
away. The FBI will be after him. He cannot escape accountability sooner
or later.

O`DONNELL: Jill, did you have to consider this, that the possibility of
the – of Nixon actually getting someone to completely not just fire the
Special Prosecutor but disband it?

WINE-BANKS: Well, we actually were abolished. If you remember the
headlines on the day, the President fired Cox and abolished the office.

We were able to go on for two reasons. One is they didn`t actually bar us
from the office, so we showed up on Sunday and Monday. But by Tuesday, we
were reappointed and a new Special Prosecutor was appointed.

So it is instructive to look at Watergate. The public pressure forced the
President to reverse course and appoint a new Special Prosecutor and allow
us to continue. It is true that it could end up badly, though.

O`DONNELL: Jill Wine-Banks gets a very important last word on this subject

Jennifer Rubin, Matt Miller, Ron Klain, thank you all for joining us
tonight. Really appreciate it.

KLAIN: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Tonight`s last word is next.


O`DONNELL: Tonight`s last word is Joy. I`ll be joining Joy Reid tomorrow
morning here on MSNBC at 11:00 a.m. in her show.

And this Sunday night, Ari Melber and Recode co-founder, Kara Swisher, will
talk with the CEOs of Google and YouTube in a special town hall event,
“Revolution: Google and YouTube Changing the World.”

Coming up next on “THE 11TH HOUR WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS,” a look at one of the
biggest challenges inside the White House, protecting President Trump from
President Trump.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.