Giuliani muddles story. TRANSCRIPT: 1/21/2019, The Last Word w. Lawrence O’Donnell.

Glenn Kirchner, Francesca Chambers, Jonathan Capehart, Jerry Zremski, Kurt Andersen

Date: January 21, 2019
Guest: Glenn Kirchner, Francesca Chambers, Jonathan Capehart, Jerry
Zremski, Kurt Andersen


And Wednesday night at 10:00 p.m., I`m going to have the very first cable
news highlights of the Rachel Maddow interview with Senator Harris when she
appears on your show.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Yes, no pressure, right?

O`DONNELL: Yes. By the way, I have nothing prepared that night. I`m
going to be sitting there. I`m going to be waiting to just harvest all the
gold so you got to create a whole show for me there.

MADDOW: Well, I`ll focus on that intently while I lay awake staring at the
ceiling for the next two nights. Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: All right. Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: Thanks.

O`DONNELL: Well, one of the central mysteries of Donald Trump`s political
life has been why was he the most pro-Russia presidential candidate in
history? And why is he now the most pro-Russia president of the United
States in history?

And one explanation, there might be more, one explanation that has emerged
is that Donald Trump wanted to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And the more
we know about the Moscow Trump Tower, the more it explains or seems to
explain about Donald Trump`s public attitude toward Vladimir Putin and
Russia, and it might to the be the only explainer of Donald Trump`s views
on Vladimir Putin and Russia. There could be other reasons why President
Trump is willing to express more confidence in Vladimir Putin`s denial that
Russia attacked our democracy than the CIA`s insistence that Russia did,
indeed, attack our democracy and tried to turn the presidential election in
favor of Donald Trump.

During the campaign, Donald Trump said that he could go out onto 5th Avenue
and shoot someone and his voters would still support him, but apparently,
the one thing Donald Trump was really afraid of his voters finding out is
that he was still trying to negotiate a deal to build a Trump Tower in
Moscow during the presidential campaign. Candidate Trump clearly did not
believe that his voters would stick with him if they found out that he was
trying to do business in Russia during the campaign.

And so, during the campaign, candidate Trump said this.


with Russia. I don`t have any jobs in Russia. I`m all over the world, but
we`re not involved in Russia.

I have no relationship to Russia whatsoever. I don`t deal there. I have
no businesses there. I have nothing to do with Russia, folks. OK?


O`DONNELL: Special prosecutor Robert Mueller seems to maybe have some
doubts about that. Seems to think the truth is probably something
different from what Donald Trump said during the campaign. And so,
according to “The New York Times,” one of the questions that the special
prosecutor asked President Trump to answer in writing is, what
communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater, and others,
including foreign nationals about Russian real estate developments during
the campaign? Key phrase, “during the campaign.”

And the answer is, a lot. According to President Trump`s TV lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, and that is a new public answer for Rudy Giuliani and Donald
Trump. And it is an answer that actually does confirm part of what
“BuzzFeed” reported last week about Donald Trump`s personal attorney,
Michael Cohen, about what he will say when he testifies next month in a
congressional hearing.

“BuzzFeed” reported that Michael Cohen will testify that he was actively
engaged in discussions with Russians about a Trump Tower project through
much of the presidential campaign. And yesterday, Rudy Giuliani not only
confirmed that aspect of the “BuzzFeed” story, but he took it a step
further and included the possibility of discussions of a Trump Tower in
Moscow right up until the returns were coming in on election night and that
those discussions at any moment could have involved Donald Trump, himself.
Rudy Giuliani, of course, has no doubt read the answer that president
Trump`s lawyers wrote in response to Robert Mueller`s question about this,
and so it is very likely that Rudy Giuliani`s answer is a preview to what
we will see, if we ever get to read President Trump`s written answer.

And Rudy Giuliani`s tour of the Sunday morning shows, he was, of course,
asked about the most damning part of last week`s “BuzzFeed” report, which
says that Michael Cohen will testify that Donald Trump urged him to lie
under oath in his first round of testimony with Congress.

Now, special prosecutor`s office on Friday issued a statement saying that
at least part of the “BuzzFeed” article is not accurate.

Here is what Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday when he was asked if the
president spoke to Michael Cohen before Michael Cohen testified to


Trump did not have discussions with him, certainly had no discussions with
him in which he told him or counseled him to lie. If he had any
discussions with him, they`d be about the version of the events that
Michael Cohen gave them which they all believe was true. I believed it was
true. I still believe it may be true because unlike these people who want
to just believe him, I believe Michael Cohen is a serial liar.


GIULIANI: They have a hatred for the president.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you just acknowledged that it`s possible that
President Trump talked to Michael Cohen about his testimony.

GIULIANI: Which would be perfectly normal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you just acknowledged that President Trump might
have talked to him about his testimony.

GIULIANI: And so what if he talked to him?



O`DONNELL: So what? Perfectly normal. Those two words. That was Rudy
Giuliani`s job yesterday, perfectly normal, to try to convince America that
it is perfectly normal for a president under investigation to talk to
witnesses in that investigation before they testify under oath in that

And, of course, there is nothing perfectly normal about that, just as there
is nothing perfectly normal about the presidency of Donald Trump.

Leading off our discussion now, John Heilemann, national affairs analyst
for NBC News and MSNBC. He`s co-host and executive producer of Showtime`s
“The Circus.” Also with us, Glenn Kirchner, former federal prosecutor and
an MSNBC legal analyst.

And, John, it does seem if you stare at the Rudy Giuliani performances long
enough, if you rewind tape and if you try to think it through, you can
sometimes find, not only sometimes, what that was all about, like, what the
mission was. And it seems to me the more I stared at it, yesterday`s
mission was perfectly normal.

Normalize the idea that Donald Trump was talking to Michael Cohen and
others, possibly, during the presidential campaign, throughout the
presidential campaign, about trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

the key element here is that you have to do it in phases because if you
listen to Rudy for long enough, your brain is reduced to mush.

O`DONNELL: Yes, true.

HEILEMANN: And you reconstitute your brain into a functioning organ and
then you apply it and you can make sense of what he`s trying to do. I
mean, I think on first pass, your reaction to it is that the back and forth
between “BuzzFeed” and the special counsel`s office late last week was an
unequivocal win for the president in a sense that it allowed him to make
his argument about fake news. It put them, kind of let them get up off the
mat after a lot of bad days of headlines. It gave him a small, apparent
victory, and you thought all Rudy had to do was go out and stick to that

But, again, as you point out, once you step back a little bit further from
it, what you realize is that in this respect, Rudy is playing a longer
game. He knows what is going to come out. Or at least he knows what
Donald Trump has told him is going to come out.

He has some rudimentary base of the facts. He knows some facts that we
don`t know about what damaging material is going to eventually become
public. And so, Rudy is, in fact, try to serve some kind of strategic goal
and normalization certainly seems to be that goal in this case however ham-
handed and clumsy and occasionally ludicrous he is as he goes about trying
to do it.

O`DONNELL: It`s true what you say about watching the Giuliani interviews
live, really all I can see for a while are just the rings when he`s holding
up his hands to the cameras.

But, Glenn, it`s an interesting strategy what John just described and what
it feels like we saw yesterday, and one of the things that`s interesting
about it is this could have been treated in the Trump team and in the
Giuliani approach to TV this weekend as a kind of triumphant turn of, look,
the special prosecutor has said “BuzzFeed`s” wrong, and just stomp on that
and leave it at that. But within that, Rudy Giuliani decided, and the team
must have decided, actually this is a good time to also throw out there
what`s going to eventually emerge, which is Donald Trump has answered in
writing that he may have been even engaged in these kinds of talks
throughout the entire presidential campaign, talks about developing a Trump
Tower in Moscow, that within all the noise about “BuzzFeed” being spanked
by the special prosecutor, let`s also throw this thing out there now.

tactical sense, Lawrence, but, you know, I think what Giuliani is, perhaps,
trying to do is what we call draw the sting. Every prosecutor knows that
when you stand up and give an opening statement, you want to certainly
highlight all the incriminating evidence that makes it seem beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. But even more
importantly, you want to draw the sting of any really bad evidence that
cuts against your theory of the prosecution.

It looks like maybe Giuliani is trying to draw the sting with what is some
pretty blockbuster and really damaging information that we have now come to
learn. When the president stands up and we see the highlight reels where
he says over and over and over again, I have no business dealings in
Russia, no business interests, I don`t plan to build Trump Tower monument
to myself in Moscow. Then only to have his own lawyer shoot that down,
definitively, as both you and John say, at a moment when they should be
celebrating sort of the special counsel shooting down some really damaging
information from “BuzzFeed”.

So, it`s really tough to figure out the tactical wisdom behind Giuliani`s
choices, but, perhaps, it is to try to draw the sting from some really
damaging information that would be coming to all of our attention fairly

O`DONNELL: I need a second here. I`m just making the same note that every
Hollywood scriptwriter of courtroom drama is doing right now.

HEILEMANN: Draw the sting.

O`DONNELL: Draw the sting. We`re going to hear that in dialogue pretty

And, John Heilemann, the way that Giuliani chooses to do this is one of the
other mysteries of Trump world. But when you look at what his job is,
which is to go out there and either assert the ridiculous, or withdraw the
ridiculous that he`s previously asserted in favor of what he knows is a
coming revelation, there`s not a lot of people who`d be willing to do that

HEILEMANN: No. I mean, look, you`re basically, you know, with every Trump
story, I know we`ve talked about this before, Lawrence, I will say one
thing, you and I can draw the sting as if, like, as easily as it is for us
to fall out of bed in the morning, right? We`re constantly drawing the
sting no matter what we do. I will keep that phrase in my mind for a long

Look, every Trump, the trajectory of every Trump lie is, you know,
essentially like if Bill Clinton were Donald Trump, it would be the
trajectory from, I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, to yes,
I admit I did have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, to, of
course, I had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, it was great, it was
perfectly normal and appropriate and you wish you did, too. That`s Trump,
right, on every lie.

So how many people are willing to go out and try to pave that road as
outrageous as that behavior is? Because that is what Trump did with Stormy
Daniels, that`s what Trump tries to do with everything, and in this case,
just like with the payments to Stormy Daniels which we minimize when we
talk about them as if they were payments to a porn star, they were
perpetrating a fraud on the American electorate, just so in this case, what
Donald Trump said was in a much more severe and consequential way,
perpetrated an 18-month-long – from the time he got into the presidential
race to election day – he perpetrated an 18-month-long fraud against the
American electorate by lying to them about something that would have had
huge political consequences had he told the truth.

And so, now, this attempt to make that seem like it was not just normal,
and not just OK, but beyond any possible impugning of the integrity of
this, of course, every businessman would do it, and every businessman would
talk to Michael Cohen about his testimony before Congress before he went
in. That is hard work and work for a very – for someone with very low
standards of ethics and nothing like any – the way in which any normal
lawyer or the kind of lawyer we would ever want to hire would have
willingly participated in but that`s Rudy Giuliani`s job.

O`DONNELL: So, after the tour of the Sunday morning shows, Rudy Giuliani
then realized the stir that he`d created with these comments and so did
some follow-up work with “The New York Times.” He then in his interview
with “The New York Times” took words right out of Donald Trump`s mouth,
quoted them.

Put them in quotation marks for “The New York Times.” He said to “the New
York Times” that the Trump Tower Moscow discussions were, and this is where
the quotation marks appear in the article, going on from the day I
announced to the day I won. Mr. Giuliani quoted Mr. Trump as saying during
an interview with “The Times.”

So, Giuliani quotes Donald Trump as saying the Moscow Trump tower
discussion – deal discussion was, quote, going on from the day I announced
to the day I won. And, Glenn, that lasted about 24 hours when later today,
Rudy Giuliani put out a statement saying, oh, I didn`t mean that, I didn`t
mean to be quoting him saying those words. He never exactly said those
words, and so, you know, we`re now back – Giuliani wants us to forget we
ever heard that, forget we ever heard from Donald Trump`s mouth from the
day I announced to the day I won.

And so, the method that Giuliani is employing here risks – apparently
risks madness at every moment.

KIRCHNER: Yes, so I did my best, Lawrence, to try to come up with some
kind of a theory that was reasonable and rational for why Giuliani was
trying to draw the sting, but then as you note, he takes that stinger and
reinserts it into his own arm. So, it`s – it`s – but here`s the other
thing that might be going on, Lawrence.

Listen, the American people love a smoking gun, right? And I think we saw
that vividly play out with the “BuzzFeed” reporting because that sure
looked like a smoking gun when, you know, it was reported that the
president told Cohen to lie to Congress. Smoking gun.

Now, it was a momentary win. I don`t know if it was – it wasn`t an
unqualified win. It was a momentary win for the president. But what does
it show us? It shows us that Bob Mueller doesn`t really care what the
evidence shows with respect to who it incriminates and who it exonerates.

He stood up and he stomped on that reporting because he has something in
his arsenal of evidence that told him that reporting was inaccurate. Now,
Bob Mueller knew that would be a momentary win for the president and, of
course, the president I`m not going to say took the bait but then you start
seeing tweets about from the president how awful this inaccurate “BuzzFeed”
reporting was, but what does that tell us?

Inferentially, that tells us the president is holding up Bob Mueller as the
teller of truth, right? So that`s going to end up backfiring. But I think
the people are dying for a smoking gun. So maybe what Giuliani is doing is
he`s sort of loading all this presidential misconduct into the gun and he`s
firing it in advance of any impeachment hearings so the smoke dissipates
and it won`t be a smoking gun three months or six months from now, it will
be old news.

I`m not saying that`s a good tactic, perhaps it is part of his tactical
choice, but, again, it`s hard to make sense.

O`DONNELL: It`s as good a theory as anything I got. Glenn Kirchner and
John Heilemann, thank you both for starting us off tonight.

When we come back, the longest government shutdown in history, in history,
now has Mitch McConnell finally admitting that the solution is in the
United States Senate. But what Mitch McConnell wants to do next will not
be the solution.

And later, what it means for campaign – to campaign against President
Trump that Senator Kamala Harris is running for president and we will see
some of her announcement and some of what the first day of what she hopes
will be a campaign against President Trump was like for her.


O`DONNELL: On this Martin Luther King Day, which is the 31st day of the
record-setting Trump shutdown of parts of the federal government, the
president of the United States, as is traditional for presidents, visited
the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington and according to the pool
reporter there, the entire visit covered approximately two minutes.

And here is everything the president reportedly said at the Martin Luther
King Memorial today in Washington.


Great day. It`s a beautiful day. Thank you for being here. Appreciate


O`DONNELL: That`s it. That`s the whole thing. Not one word about Martin
Luther King.

It was another day without pay for the 800,000 government workers who are
victims of the Trump shutdown. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is
now acknowledging that the solution to the shutdown resides in the United
States Senate. Something we have been insisting on on this program since
the House of Representatives passed bills to re-open the government and
sent those bills to the Senate where Mitch McConnell has been ignoring

Mitch McConnell has now announced he`s going to take up a new bill this
week that has not been considered by any congressional committee, that has
not passed the house of representatives, and does not contain – and does,
in fact, contain all of the funding that Donald Trump wants for his border
wall. This, of course, violates Mitch McConnell`s own promise made on the
Senate floor not to take up any bill that cannot pass the Democratically
controlled House of Representatives also. McConnell, himself, has said
that that would be a pointless waste of time, but at least Mitch McConnell
will appear to be doing something for those people who are convinced that
the shutdown belongs to Republicans.

“The Washington Post” reports that Donald Trump is losing support among
voters in key states that won him the Electoral College like Michigan.
Many here, even those who still support Trump, say they hold him most
responsible. They recite his comment from the Oval Office that he would be
proud to shut down the government. When he said it, they listened.


TRUMP: I am proud to shut down the government for border security. So I
will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I`m not going to
blame you for it.


O`DONNELL: Joining our discussion now, Francesca Chambers, White House
correspondent for the and John Heilemann is still with us.

And, Francesca, Mitch McConnell violating his own promise. He said at the
outset of the shutdown that he didn`t want to bring any bill to a vote in
the Senate that wouldn`t pass the House of Representatives and wouldn`t be
signed by the president and so here he is bringing up a bill, promising to
try to bring up a bill, in the Senate, that will probably please at least
some, or maybe even most, Senate Republicans, but doesn`t look like it has
a chance of passage.

really putting the cart before the horse there, though, Lawrence, because
it would have to get past a cloture vote in the Senate, 60 votes, and it`s
not very clear how the White House, how Mitch McConnell plans to get to
those 60 votes. Republicans hold 53 seats and even with the help of
someone like Joe Manchin, they would still need six additional votes and
the vice president and Mick Mulvaney and Jared Kushner sat down with
reporters immediately after the president`s address on Saturday and that
came out and the White House wouldn`t say who the other Democrats that it
was speaking to were. And they didn`t seem very optimistic in that
conversation about hitting that 60-vote threshold.

O`DONNELL: And, John Heilemann, one thing Mitch McConnell does with this,
though, is focus the solution in the United States Senate. I mean, he was
sitting there for all of these days now saying that there was absolutely
nothing for him to do until some global agreement had been reached with the
House, the Senate, and the White House, and now he`s decided, oh, no, no,
the Senate can take action.

HEILEMANN: Yes, well, look, Lawrence, I think, obviously, McConnell is
starting to feel the heat and his members are starting to feel the heat.
That`s who he cares about, right? So it seems like he – we know with
McConnell is a cagy, crafty guy.

It`s clear he`s not going to be able to assemble 60 votes. There`s not
been any splintering. The hope was they`d splinter off enough of these
moderate Democratic senators that they could get the seven that they
needed, Manchin and six more. And they`d be able to be in business. Then
at least they`d send it, put pressure on the House.

He`s not going to get that. There`s been total Democratic unity on this
question. So, I think it must be his plan, I`m curious if you think this
is a smart plan or not, knowing the Senate, that his place has got to be
now, he`s got to get all Republicans to vote for it, the Democrats are
going be in the way of it and going to try to turn that I guess into a
partisan thing to try to focus on it`s Democrats who control the House, and
Democrats in the Senate who are standing in the way of any kind of

I don`t think that that`s going to work for him, but it does seem to be
what his game is now given that he can`t get the votes that he needs to get
to 60.

O`DONNELL: Well, I think that`s what he`s telling the White House, what
you just said, John. But a lot of times when a leader is in an absolutely
hopeless position like this in the Senate, one of the things you have to do
is show your side that your side has a losing hand.


O`DONNELL: You bring your side`s position to a vote. You watch it lose.
And then you turn to the people on your side and say, OK, what now?

And, Francesca, that at some point, at some point, can be what the solution
to these things so often has been in the past. Mitch McConnell just
agreeing to take up a continuing resolution passed by Nancy Pelosi.

CHAMBERS: So in that same briefing that I mentioned before, I also asked
Mick Mulvaney about that next step, potentially, if they can`t reach the
60-vote threshold. I asked about a national emergency and whether that`s
still something the president is considering and he asserted he still
believes the president does have the authority to do that.

Now, the president doesn`t want to do that, he said, because he`d prefer to
solve this legislatively. However, they continue to believe that the
president has that authority. So that`s something else to keep an eye on
after this Senate vote if it does, indeed, fail.

O`DONNELL: Francesca Chambers and John Heilemann, thank you both for
joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.

And when we come back, we have two more candidates for president now
actively running, both women, both United States senators, and both top-
tier candidates. We`ll be back with those campaigns.


O`DONNELL: Faithful viewers of this program have known for eight years
that Kamala Harris was going to run for president. And so we`re not
surprised when Senator Harris officially announced her candidacy for the
presidency today because when she made her very first appearance on MSNBC,
which was on this program, I introduced her as a future presidential

She was then the district attorney of San Francisco and I had seen Kamala
Harris campaigning earlier that year for attorney general of California.
And the politician she reminded me of most then was Barack Obama who was,
of course, then the president of the United States.

Republican Strategist Karl Rove had the same reaction I did, which is why
he helped pour money into a campaign to try to defeat Kamala Harris for
attorney general because Karl Rove could see that if Kamala Harris won a
statewide office in California, there would be no stopping her rise in
national politics.

And he was right. Kamala Harris won the attorney general election and a
close one. And a few years later, when California`s Senator Barbara Boxer
decided she wasn`t going to run for re-election, as I predicted, Kamala
Harris ran for Senate and won. And right on schedule as predicted here
eight years ago, Kamala Harris is now running for president.

And she is one of the top-tier candidates in a highly competitive field
that does not yet have a clear front-runner among the announced candidates.
Senator Harris had her first campaign press conference today in Washington,
D.C., at her alma mater, Howard University, and she explained why.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Howard University is one of the most
important aspects of my life, and it is where I first ran for my first
elected office, which was freshman class representative of the Liberal Arts
Students Council at Howard University. So this is where it all began.


O`DONNELL: Senator Harris was asked about President Trump`s withdrawal
from Syria. She expressed no disagreement with the policy but said she`s
concerned about the process or lack of process the president uses in such
impulsive decisions and objected to what she called foreign policy through

She was asked the usual horse race questions by reporters about her so-
called path to victory, and she was asked a question no other candidate is
going to get.


REPORTER: You`re an African-American woman but you`re also Indian-American
and I`m just curious –

HARRIS: Indeed.

REPORTER: What`s the best – how do you describe yourself?

HARRIS: Did you read my book? How do I describe myself? I describe
myself as a proud American. That`s how I describe myself.


O`DONNELL: Another proud American and top-tier presidential candidate,
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who announced her candidacy last week, spent
the weekend in Iowa where she fielded questions from reporters but more
importantly, got to take questions from real Iowa voters.


REPORTER: I would love to get more about the environment.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: I`m 100 percent, literally 100
percent. I want to have – put a price on carbon. I think we should focus
on how you can build an infrastructure with green jobs. I think it`s very
important to make sure clean water is accessible to every human being in

I believe in making sure we take on the causes of global climate change. I
believe in global energies. I believe in putting more investment into
battery cars, mass transit. Investing in infrastructure as a way to
address global climate change, 100 percent. And I have a hundred percent
record on my (INAUDIBLE) entire time in public service.


O`DONNELL: When we come back, Jonathan Capehart will join us on the launch
of these two new presidential campaigns and we`ll be joined by Jerry
Zremski who covered Senator Gillibrand`s first visit to Iowa as a
presidential candidate this weekend.



GILLIBRAND: Now is our time to reclaim our power. Now is our time to
raise our voices. Now is our time to fight for our beliefs. Now is our
time to get off the sidelines. Our democracy only works when regular
people like every one of you stands up, demands it and fights for it.


O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Jerry Zremski, the Washington bureau chief for
the “Buffalo News.” He was with Senator Gillibrand in Iowa this weekend.
And Jonathan Capehart, Pulitzer Prize-Winning opinion writer for the “The
Washington Post” and an MSNBC contributor.

And Jonathan, you`ve interviewed Senator Harris earlier this year about her
book, actually. And I think – I`m sure you`re among the unsurprised that
she has finally officially launched the presidential campaign. But as she
starts off, it is a kind of a crowded starting gate of United States
senators, particularly Democratic Women United States senators.

terrific thing, the first time we`ve ever seen this in American history.
But as you rightly predicted nine years ago, Lawrence, that Senator Harris
was going to jump into the race.

And 12 days ago, I interviewed her here at George Washington University.
And on page 5 of her book, of a book that`s filled with illusions to her
running for things and doing things that people told her that she couldn`t
do and taking chances.

All the races she ran were races that people told her she shouldn`t run or
that she couldn`t win. That was San Francisco district attorney. That was
California state attorney general. Both races she defied the odds and won.

And when you read her book, the reason why she`s now trying to defy the
odds, if you will, and run for president is because she feels there`s a
calling. At the end of the book, I tried – I asked her to read the final
paragraph of her book where she basically asks, you know, herself and
Americans, what will you do when your children look you in the eyes and
they ask you, how did you feel at this moment and what did you do?

And her answer when that time comes for her, as we found out today, is, I
ran for president. That is going to – that will be her answer.

O`DONNELL: And Jerry Zremski, no reporters get a better look, I think, at
New York politicians than “Buffalo News” because you get to see them even -
- the Washington correspondent, you get to see them in dealing with areas
of interest in New York that most people in the national media never

And so this is part of why when Senator Gillibrand was in Iowa this
weekend, she was telling people that she represents some pretty big tracts
of territory that feel and look a lot like Iowa in Upstate New York.

very true. And I was very much struck by the fact that she made that a
specific point in dealing with people in Iowa.

She was clearly trying to bond with people in Iowa by saying look, I
understand agriculture. I understand your issues. And that means that you
really ought to listen to what I have to say because I can really represent

O`DONNELL: And Jonathan, as I think it often gets ignored in the United
States, our biggest agriculture state is a place called California. So
when you go out to Iowa and you`re talking agriculture, and you`re the
senator from California, that`s something that California senators
traditionally know an awful lot more about than they ever get to publicly
display to national news media. Also true, by the way, of senators like
Gillibrand who represent big tracts of farming land in Upstate New York.

And so they may both, but especially I think Senator Harris when it comes
to agriculture issues and some of those Midwest issues, she might surprise
people with her fluency in those arenas.

CAPEHART: Right. That`s going to be the interesting thing here that
you`re going to have these two senators from two big states that have urban


CAPEHART: Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse.
But when they get to Iowa and when Iowans do what they do every four years
and kick the tires on all these people who think they want to be president,
when they hear from a senator from California or a senator from New York
being able to talk to them with fluency about agricultural issues, it will
be a different kind of race.

Everyone`s trying to figure out who`s going to be the person who`s going to
swoop into Iowa and sweep them off their feet, and you never hear them talk
about Gillibrand or Harris. But as you rightly point out, they have as
much shot as a Sherrod Brown or a Joe Biden if he gets in, as anyone.

O`DONNELL: And once they`re on the debate stage, everybody`s equal on that
stage. And, Jerry, according to your report in the “Buffalo News,” one of
the things that Senator Gillibrand is kind of – has to run out of, is this
lack of awareness of both who she is and a certain point what she`s running

There were voters saying to you, OK, what is she running for? And she
doesn`t come in there with the kind of name recognition that Elizabeth
Warren has or, you know, others might have, entering that state.

ZREMSKI: Yes, that`s very much true. And I think the only way she really
can compete is to work Iowa the way generations of candidates have worked
Iowa. That means going there again and again and again, meeting voters
one-on-one, and slowly but surely building your name recognition. Slowly
but surely becoming a force in the race.

She has a lot of money. She has $10.5 million in dollars left over from
her Senate race. So she has the means to promote herself to get better
known. What I thought was important about her appearance this weekend was
that she really handled the retail side of things very, very well.

She really seemed to resonate with the voters. She was funny. She was
relaxed. She was very pointed in criticizing President Trump, which some
candidates had not done on the Democratic side, interestingly. So I think
she did very well, just for starters.

O`DONNELL: And Jonathan, Senator Harris has something that Senator
Gillibrand and Senator Warren don`t really have. And that is the
experience of winning an incredibly tight race. Her first statewide race,
when she was going from San Francisco district attorney to attorney general
of California really, came down to the wire, really came down to counting
every single vote.

And there`s something about those candidates who`ve had to fight to the
very last second for every single vote without a single poll telling them
in those final 48 hours that they`re going to win. That`s a candidate
who`s been through a different kind of test than others.

CAPEHART: Right. As you – I don`t know if you showed the clip of her
from Howard today where she said, you know, she knows how to fight. She`s
not afraid of a fight.


CAPEHART: Those races are sort of proof positive that, no, she`s not
afraid of a fight. She knows how to fight. And she knows how to run with

You know, in her book, there`s a lot of illusions – there are a lot of
illusions to fighting. And she says in there that the toughest race she
ever – she has ever run was against a woman in college who she called
Jersey Stacey I think was her name. She has to go all the way back to
college to find the toughest candidate she`s ever run against.

O`DONNELL: They never forget. Jerry, quick one before we go. The very
last line of your article is so striking. You have an Iowa voter talking
about Senator Gillibrand. The last line is simply, “she just radiates.”

So she seemed to be really effective in meeting voters. But on the other
hand, what is the biggest resistance or point of resistance she ran into in

ZREMSKI: The biggest point of resistance actually came from the press.
And it`s been coming at her for really quite some time. I can recall 10
years ago stories about these very same points. And those points were that
back in the day when she was a member of the House of Representatives, she
represented a very conservative district in Upstate New York and she was
very conservative on immigration and she had an A rating from the NRA.

That is very difficult to explain if you`re a Democrat in 2019 running in
2020. She has been trying to explain it for the better part of a year now.
She went on “60 Minutes” about a year ago and explained it. And again and
again, in her show – in her appearances with the press this weekend, she
talked about it and tried to say “Basically, I was wrong back then, I`ve
learned, I`m better now.”

O`DONNELL: Jonathan Capehart, thank you for joining us tonight. And Jerry
Zremski of the “Buffalo News”, thank you for helping us tonight.

CAPEHART: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Really appreciate it.

And when we come back, in his latest column, George Will calls Donald Trump
“an almost inexpressibly sad specimen.” The sadness of Donald Trump
apparently includes his physical appearance. And so the Trump team is
reportedly retouching photographs to help Donald Trump lose the weight that
he doesn`t lose by watching “Fox News”.

The control room here assures me they are trying to do exactly the same
thing with the cameras here at THE LAST WORD.


O`DONNELL: “Washington Post” reports that President Trump has made 8,158
false or misleading claims in the first two years of his presidency. And
in that same vain, “Gizmodo” reports in recent months Trump`s official
Facebook and Instagram accounts have published photos of the president that
have been manipulated to make him look thinner.

In addition, the president`s index finger appears to have been altered in
the post to make it seem longer than it was in the original photos as seen
in this image from “Gizmodo”.

In his latest column in “The Washington Post”, George F. Will writes about
Donald Trump, “He is an almost inexpressibly sad specimen. It must be
misery to awaken to another day of being Donald Trump. His childlike
ignorance preserved by a lifetime of single-minded self-promotion
concerning governance and economics guarantees that whenever he must
interact with experienced and accomplished people, he is as bewildered as a
kindergartener at a seminar on string theory. Either the electorate, bored
with a menu of faintly variant servings of boorishness, or the 22nd
Amendment will end this, our shabbiest but not our first shabby

Joining our discussion now, Kurt Andersen, host of the public radio program
“Studio 360”. He has covered Donald Trump for decades. And Kurt, you and
Graydon Carter famously of “Spy Magazine” were the first to observe the
size of the president`s fingers, which apparently the tech crowd at team
Trump has figured out a kind of digital solution to them.

KURT ANDERSEN, HOST, STUDIO 360: Yes. No, we – based on empirical
observations called him a short-fingered Bulgarian 30 years ago. And
extraordinarily, I saw this “Gizmodo” story. Oh, they`re trying to make
him look less fat. As you suggested earlier, who wouldn`t want that?

O`DONNELL: Oh yes. If they can do that right now, I`m all for it.

ANDERSEN: But they also, in more than one photograph that are on his
Instagram and Facebook pages, made his finger look longer. So 30 years
later, this silly piece of ridicule we threw at him repeatedly apparently
is still weighing on him.

And you mentioned the lies, “The Washington Post” tally, which I follow.
I`m a student of Donald Trump fantasy and falsehood. And, yes, the
absolute number is great. But if you follow it, you see that his first
year in office, there were six lies a day on there.

Last year through the summer, 20. Then up through the election, it got to
be 35 lies, misleading claims, and falsehoods a day. Then suddenly, after
the election had dropped off and now he`s getting it back up there. He`s
now up to 25 just so far this year.

The other thing, if we`re going to talk about falsehoods and lies in Trump
land, there is this news that was reported about Michael Cohen when he
worked for Donald Trump trying to rig a drudge report online poll rating
the approval among Republicans of the various Republican candidates. And
he hired this guy to do that.

Even with the cheating to flapper –


ANDERSEN: – Donald Trump, he only got him to number five. So, again,
this web of falsehood, fantasy, lies, much of it born by his narcissism is
just like a gift basket of Donald Trump falsehood.

O`DONNELL: Having watched him for so long, do you have a theory that we`re
all kind of pondering is that, a theory of Giuliani, a theory of why
Giuliani and why is Giuliani sent out there to do those kinds of
performances? Is it because Donald Trump is the only one who understands
them when he sees Giuliani?

ANDERSEN: Well, there is, as you talked about earlier, somewhat compelling
with your previous guests about there may be a strategy to get out and take
the sting or whatever that wonderful phrase was. But my theory of Giuliani
and Trump is that Giuliani is simply dealing with the mercurial liar who is
his client.

And, so, Trump lies to him and he goes out and says the lie and then gives
him some truth. And Giuliani tells the truth. And then he has to walk
that back to the lie. So I don`t – maybe there is tactics here and maybe
there is indeed this trying to get the dirt out so it seems like old news
by the time somebody is indicted for it.

But I just think it`s a guy whose sense of intellectual rigger is iffy
Giuliani dealing with his client whose sense of reality and truth is
absolutely iffy. So that`s – to me, that`s the theory.

O`DONNELL: That`s as good as we`ve got. Kurt Andersen, thank you very
much for joining us tonight.

ANDERSEN: My pleasure.

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


O`DONNELL: On Friday night, I mentioned to Joy Reid on this program that I
was going to the Saturday matinee performance of Kerry Washington`s new
Broadway Play “American Son” written by Christopher Demos-Brown. And that
sparked Joy Reid to get tickets for the show this week and sparked some of
you to actually shop at that matinee on Saturday where you were lucky
enough to grab the last available tickets for that performance.

Well, you have now just one week left before the play closes. And I
mention it because this play, alone among Broadway Plays speaks directly to
an important issue we have covered on this program from the start. An
issue that I have been writing about throughout my career, police use of
deadly force and the many aspects of the burden that that has always
imposed on black men and their loved ones.

But this is not a play about an issue. It is about real people in a
riveting drama with Kerry Washington delivering what “The New York Times”
calls a great performance. If you see one play this week, make it American
Son. It is a theater experience you will never forget. And you never know
who you might run into in the audience of that play. That`s tonight`s LAST
WORD. “THE 11TH HOUR” with Brian Williams starts now.


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