Cohen to testify to Intelligence Committee. TRANSCRIPT: 3/5/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell.

Guests:
Lanny Davis, Raja Krishnamoorthi, John Brennan
Transcript:

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening, Rachel.

 

Michael Cohen testifies again tomorrow, closed doors, to the Intelligence

Committee.  We have a member of the committee who will be questioning

tomorrow joining us.  And his lawyer Lanny Davis is going to be joining us. 

 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Very good.  Lanny Davis made some news on our

show earlier this week and what he has within the past week and he tends to

have his finger on the pulse here.  Good luck with that. 

 

O`DONNELL:  He`s very good at that.  And that`s why he`s the lead guest

tonight and he might make some news tonight.  We will see.

 

MADDOW:  On the edge of my seat.  Thanks, Lawrence.

 

O`DONNELL:  Thank you, Rachel.

 

Well, as I said, Michael Cohen will be testifying once again tomorrow at a

closed session of the House Intelligence Committee and Michael Cohen`s

lawyer Lanny Davis will be our first guest tonight.  When Michael Cohen

speaks investigators, around the country take notes and go to work. 

 

“The New York Times” is reporting tonight that New York state insurance

regulators are investigating President Trump and his company because of

Michael Cohen`s answers to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK:  Did the president ever

provide inflated assets to an insurance company? 

 

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP LAWYER:  Yes. 

 

OCASIO-CORTEZ:  Who else knows that the president did this? 

 

COHEN:  Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew Calamari. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  “The New York Times” is reporting, quote, New York state

regulators have issued an expansive subpoena to the Trump Organization`s

longtime insurance broker, the first step in an investigation of insurance

policies and claims involving President Trump`s family business, according

to a person briefed on the matter. 

 

“The New York Times” also reports that the nine-page subpoena demands a

broad range of materials dating back to 2009.  The subpoena demands copies

of all communications between an insurance broker and Donald Trump and the

Trump Organization. 

 

State and federal investigators are not the only ones who found Michael

Cohen`s testimony credible enough to require further investigation, a new

Quinnipiac poll shows that 50 percent of voters believe Michael Cohen now

more than they believe President Trump with only 35 percent believe

President Trump more than they believe Michael Cohen.  That same Quinnipiac

poll shows that 64 percent of voters believe that President Trump committed

crimes before he took office.  Only 24 percent do not believe the president

committed crimes before he took office. 

 

Forty-five percent of voters believe that the president has committed

crimes while in office.  Forty-three percent do not believe that the

president has committed crimes while in office. 

 

Michael Cohen provided the House Oversight Committee evidence that

President Trump has indeed committed crimes both before he took office

during his presidential campaign and while in office as president.  That

evidence came in the form of checks delivered to Michael Cohen from

President Trump, including one that was signed in the White House by the

president. 

 

Michael Cohen testified that those checks were part of an illegal pay off

scheme to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about her affair with Donald

Trump during the presidential campaign. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

COHEN:  In February of 2017, one month into his presidency, I`m visiting

President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time and he says to me

something to the effect of don`t worry Michael, your January and February

reimbursement checks are coming.  They were FedExed from New York and it

takes awhile for that to get through the White House system.  As he

promised, I received the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000 not

long thereafter. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  Here is that February check for $70,000 which covered two

months of the agreed upon payment of $35,000 a month to Michael Cohen to

reimburse him for the money that he paid to Stormy Daniels. 

 

Note that this check came from the Donald J. Trump trust account.  The

trust account.  That check is signed by the Trump chief financial officer

Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr.  Michael Cohen received another

check with the same signatures from the same trust account a month later

for his monthly payment of $35,000. 

 

And the check that Michael Cohen produced in last week`s hearing with

Donald Trump`s signature was written six months into the Trump presidency

and came from a different account, what appears to be a personal checking

account of Donald J. Trump.  The accounts used to pay these checks are an

important element of this story, which we will explore in a moment with

Michael Cohen`s lawyer Lanny Davis. 

 

One of the least important manners Michael Cohen testified to was Donald

Trump`s desperate concern to keep his academic records from high school and

college hidden from public view. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

COHEN:  When I say con man, I`m talking about a man who declares himself

brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and

the college board to never release his grades or SAT scores.  As I

mentioned, I`m giving the committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr.

Trump`s direction threatening these schools with civil and criminal actions

if Mr. Trump`s grades or SAT scores were ever disclosed without his

permission. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  Fordham University confirmed they were threatened to keep

Donald Trump`s college transcript hidden.  The University of Pennsylvania

where Donald Trump transferred after Fordham has made no public comment. 

And “The Washington Post” is reporting tonight that friends of Donald Trump

tried to seize his high school records in 2011 right after Donald Trump

said that he wanted President Obama to, quote, show his records because

Donald Trump believed that Barack Obama was, quote, a terrible student. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESSMAN:  The word is, according to what I`ve read, that

he was a terrible student when he went to Occidental.  Now, maybe that`s

right or maybe it`s wrong, but I don`t know why he doesn`t release his

records. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  It`s against the law for schools to publicly release student`s

transcripts but Ivy League schools like the University of Pennsylvania

where Donald Trump graduated and Harvard where Barack Obama graduated from

law school do make public records of the students who graduate with honors

and then Ivy League schools most students actually graduate with honors,

not graduating with honors is unusual in Ivy League schools. 

 

There are three levels, of course.  Cum laude, the lowest, magna cum laude

and summa cum laude, the highest honors.  Donald Trump did not graduate

with honors from the University of Pennsylvania.  That is public

information. 

 

And that puts him somewhere in the bottom half of his class academically

even though the president once claimed to have graduated as the number one

student in his class.  Barack Obama did graduate from Harvard Law School

magna cum laude. 

 

Last night, at this hour, we have the breaking news report by the “Wall

Street Journal” that Michael Cohen`s lawyers discussed the possibility of a

pardon with President Trump`s lawyers.  “The Wall Street Journal” reported

that Rudy Giuliani, quote, left open the possibility that the president

could grant Mr. Cohen one in the future. 

 

Here is what Michael Cohen said about a pardon last week. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

COHEN:  My testimony certainly does not diminish the pain that I have

caused my family and my friends.  Nothing can do that.  And I have never

asked for nor would I accept a pardon from President Trump. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  And leading off our discussion tonight is Lanny Davis, an

attorney for Michael Cohen. 

 

Lanny Davis, thank you for joining us tonight.  I really appreciate it. 

 

I want to start with the pardon which we just introduced here.  “The Wall

Street Journal” reporting was not that Michael Cohen personally requested a

pardon but his lawyers at some point discussed the possibility of a pardon

with President Trump`s lawyers and that Rudy Giuliani for one left open the

possibility.  Is that accurate reporting? 

 

LANNY DAVIS, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN:  Yes, the time period is what

needs to be stressed.  Michael Cohen lied for Donald Trump for ten years

and is going to prison in part because of a lie to Congress as well as the

cover-up scheme that Donald Trump is still paying for or was paying for

when you showed those checks. 

 

The statement that Michael made was after he made a decision, and I think I

was part of that, when he decided to express his shame for his prior lies

when he was certainly looking at the option of pardon when they were

dangling that as a way of I think luring people to stay within the tent. 

And then when he decided on July 2nd, 2018, I will not lie anymore, and he

asked me to help him tell the truth.  So that sentence, which I helped

write was about the time period after he decided as we decided to call it

his turn to the truth.

 

And at that point, he said to me, I want you to publicly say, I wouldn`t

accept a pardon if he begged me to take it.  And I said, are you sure?  And

he said, yes.  And I went out publicly and I said he would never accept a

pardon and that was the reference intended by that sentence. 

 

O`DONNELL:  But why wouldn`t he accept a pardon?  Who has not accepted a

pardon? 

 

DAVIS:  Well, I was doubtful when he said it to me.  He was in a great,

stressful situation with a wife and two kids and looking at a prison

sentence potentially.  And he had lied for ten years and was expressing

shame to me.

 

And I said, are you willing to say that publicly?  And you have a deep hole

and you are a good man, and a good father but in order to win credibility

which I see from the polls he has won, you need to be willing to tell the

truth and all the truth and part of that is would you accept a pardon to

get out of this fixture and from this man that you describe as having done

dirty deeds for ten years.  And he said to me, yes, and then he said, I

want you to say that publicly, maybe people will believe me, and I did. 

 

O`DONNELL:  And I want to get your reaction also to what we`re seeing as

the expanding investigations.  Michael Cohen speaks and the requests for

documents fly.  It`s hard to remember a congressional reaction like this to

congressional testimony over 80 requests for documents from the White House

from Trump businesses, from other government entities, all almost all of

them coming out of Michael Cohen`s testimony, which is continuing as we

know there will be more Michael Cohen testimony tomorrow morning. 

 

Is that what you expected knowing, you knew in advance what Michael Cohen`s

testimony was going to be, did you expect it to provoke this follow up? 

 

DAVIS:  I honestly did but it`s still more to come because we had a list of

subjects that was basically Michael Cohen`s confession of him facilitating

these subjects or his memory of them.  And one of them for example, you

mentioned the grades.  He threatened a major educational institution with

criminal sanctions if they released Donald Trump`s grades. 

 

On another occasion, Michael said to the American people and to every

serviceman and every rural American who considers themselves to be

patriots, listen to this, if you voted for Donald Trump, he said to Michael

Cohen, don`t say anything if people ask for proof of my bone spur that

allowed me to not go to Vietnam, and then he said, quote, you got to be

stupid to go to Vietnam. 

 

And so, Michael was forbidden to respond to reporter`s questions what turns

out to be a fake assertion by him that he had a bone spur to get out of

serving.  At that point, Michael looked at the television camera, and right

at that moment, he said, Mr. President, isn`t it ironic, you said people

have to be stupid to serve in Vietnam, you`re now in Vietnam.  Of course,

in a failed negotiation with the North Korean leader.

 

But that`s the kind of thing that is going to encourage more

investigations.  He lied to the Secret Service – excuse me, the selective

service on his draft deferments and almost everything in his testimony, if

you read it is a subject area that will be grounds for further

investigation. 

 

O`DONNELL:  I want to go to what one member of the committee called the

smoking gun and that was the check that Michael Cohen produced with the

president`s signature on it written in August, so that`s about six months

into the Trump presidency, possibly signed on that desk in the Oval Office

because according to Michael Cohen`s testimony, these checks had to be

FedExed, you hear him say FedExed, to the White House so that the president

himself could sign them, that is what the president told Michael Cohen in

the Oval Office, according to Michael Cohen. 

 

I noticed, Lanny, that the one the president signed is not from a business

account.  It is not from a Trump company account.  It simply has the name

Donald J. Trump on it.  That looks to me like a personal check.  That would

be a very odd source for a business payment, for if Michael Cohen is being

retained by the business in a retainer agreement, it strikes me as odd that

the Trump business isn`t paying for those legal services. 

 

DAVIS:  Well, first of all, I`m a lawyer and I always try to use the word

“alleged” if we`re talking about crime because everyone is entitled to due

process, including Donald Trump.  But there is literally no way to dispute

that he committed a crime.  He not only wrote a personal check but they

invented a cover-up story that it was a retainer check. 

 

The word “invented” and “fictional” or “bogus” was not my opinion, it is a

fact there was no retainer agreement.  It was a scheme concocted by

Michael, by Donald Trump and by Mr. Weisselberg as a way of avoiding

tracing the pay off money, the hush money to Stormy Daniels.  The

prosecutors and the U.S. government said that in the information statement

on Michael`s plea of guilt. 

 

There is no doubt that the word reimbursement was the reimbursement of

Michael Cohen advancing the hush money and who said the word reimbursement

after Donald Trump denied knowing anything about the Stormy Daniels payment

at all?  Rudy Giuliani on television called it a reimbursement to Michael

Cohen. 

 

So there were no facts in dispute that the president of the United States

as president committed a felony.  Literally, there is no way to dispute

that statement and I say that with a caution that alleged is a word you

should always try to use when you`re accusing somebody of a crime.  I can`t

find the ability to use the word alleged because everything I said to you,

Lawrence, is an undisputed or undisputable fact.  That shows a felony, a

conspiracy to pay hush money and to cover it up. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Well, two of the checks that we`ve seen so far apparently there

are going to be more available for public inspection, but were signed by

Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr. and those were taken from the trust

account, the accounts set up that Donald Trump is not supposed to touch,

it`s supposed to be the separation of the Trump businesses from the Trump

presidency. 

 

But Allen Weisselberg presumably has testified or been questioned by the

FBI about this in New York City since that`s the office that has been

prosecuting the Michael Cohen case and Allen Weisselberg, do you know if

he`s taken the position there was indeed a retainer agreement for Michael

Cohen`s legal services that this was payment for that had nothing to do

with Stormy Daniels? 

 

DAVIS:  Well, that was the cover story I know because Mr. Weisselberg and

Michael and Mr. Trump together decided that Michael needed to do it to

avoid it being traced because two or three days before an election that

turned out to be very close and won by Mr. Trump.  They did not want after

“Access Hollywood”, they did not want the story about an adult film star

being subject to a hush money payment. 

 

So, Mr. Weisselberg said, well, I can`t afford it and why don`t you do it

from your line of credit, Michael, but we don`t want it traceable to the

Trump Organization.  To answer your question, Lawrence, Mr. Weisselberg was

given limited immunity by the federal prosecutors in the Southern District

for the testimony about this hush money scheme.  Michael had to plead

guilty.  Mr. Weisselberg was given immunity but it`s limited immunity. 

 

And I don`t know the answer to whether he told the prosecutors about this

scheme and told the truth that there was never a retainer.  This was a

cover-up but now the question is his signing that check as implementing

this hush money illegal scheme is a crime.  And the question is did he tell

the federal prosecutors about the signing of these checks at the time he

was granted limited immunity, that`s something between him and his lawyer,

but I`m sure there`s a concern about that. 

 

O`DONNELL:  And, Lanny, we all saw on television that there wasn`t a single

Republican who went anywhere near the smoking gun.  They would not touch

the smoking gun of the check signed by Donald Trump and the other check

signed by Allen Weisselberg and I know that there has been testimony behind

closed doors.  And can you tell us if any Republicans have at any point

challenged or questioned Michael Cohen at any point about these checks? 

 

DAVIS:  No.  And I sat there not necessarily surprised that the Republicans

on the House Oversight Committee, many of them people that I respect and

descent people, descent friends, descent parents and descent human beings

never once mentioned Donald Trump throughout the entire hearing.  They

pounded away at what Michael had already admitted to in shame that he had

lied for ten years for Donald Trump, that he had lied to Congress and he

was going to prison paying the price. 

 

Now, one member of the House Oversight Committee on the Republican side had

the decency to at least give him credit for taking the responsibility and

paying the price and never once asked about those checks, about the

president of their party that I`m sure they genuinely believe in. 

 

So, it`s a remarkable hypocrisy that I wish I could have seen more from

good people who are Republicans supporting Donald Trump. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Lanny, I have a quick question unrelated to this that goes back

to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  That`s when you became one of the most

prominent lawyers in America in your defense of President Clinton and

that`s when the country met Lindsey Graham for the first time.  He was a

member of the House Judiciary Committee, who was a prosecutor of the case

against Bill Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial.

 

And today, I`m not sure you`re aware of this.  Lindsey Graham had a meeting

with the president and which he told the president to follow the Bill

Clinton model in handling himself in the presidency while under

investigation and just do the business of the president and stay away from

the investigation.  And he said to the president according to Lindsey

Graham himself, that Bill Clinton is a good model for the president to

follow. 

 

Did you ever think you`d live to see the day where Bill Clinton impeachment

prosecutor would tell a Republican president to follow the model of Bill

Clinton when under investigation? 

 

DAVIS:  Let me think about this – no.  I got to know Lindsey Graham after

debating many times on television and friendship with Senator McCain and a

good friend of mine, Joe Lieberman, is another way I got to know him.  And

all I can say about Senator Graham, there is much about him I like, but the

disappointment is that in honor of John McCain, he is supporting a

president who disparaged John McCain as not being a hero because he got

captured as missing in action and as a prisoner of war, excuse me. 

 

So I just find a great disappointment in Lindsey Graham even though we

still have a friendship.  I`m just utterly baffled that he would after all

that he said about Donald Trump during his presidential campaign and his

close friendship with John McCain, that he would still be that supportive

of President Trump. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Well, I have much more to say about what Lindsey Graham said

today at the end of the show tonight. 

 

Lanny Davis, thank you very much for joining us tonight. 

 

DAVIS:  Thank you for having me, Lawrence.  For all the time, thank you. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Thank you. 

 

Well, one of the members of the House Intelligence Committee who will

question Michael Cohen again tomorrow will join us next. 

 

And new reports tonight that President Trump also pressured government

officials to give his daughter Ivanka Trump access to national secrets in

spite of concerns from intelligence officials.  Former CIA Director John

Brennan will join us. 

 

And at the end of this hour, as I said, we will show you how no one has

humiliated Senator Lindsey Graham more than Lindsey Graham has humiliated

Lindsey Graham, including today. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  There is apparently a big difference between what Michael Cohen

can say in public testimony and what he can say on closed door testimony. 

One of the most important answers, if not the most important answer that

Michael Cohen gave in his public testimony last week was this. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D), ILLINOIS:  Is there any other wrongdoing or

illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump that we haven`t

yet discussed today? 

 

COHEN:  Yes, and again, those are part of the investigation that`s

currently being looked at by the Southern District of New York. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  Joining our discussion now, the congressman who asked that

question, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, who will also be in the closed

door hearing with Michael Cohen tomorrow in the House Intelligence

Committee. 

 

And Eugene Robinson, who has watched more congressional investigations from

the press gallery than any of us is with us.  He`s a Pulitzer Prize-winning

columnist and associate editor for “The Washington Post”.  He`s also an

MSNBC political analyst. 

 

And, Congressman, I want to ask you about what the difference is if you can

tell us between the public testimony and issues that Michael Cohen can get

into and private testimony and have you learned more in the closed door

testimony than you did in the public testimony? 

 

KRISHNAMOORTHI:  Thanks for having me on, Lawrence.  Yes, you do learn a

little more in a closed setting because you can get into a lot more detail. 

You can talk about classified information.  This is down in this SCIF where

the under ground bunker beneath the Capitol, and there are no cameras.

 

And I think that the fact that there are no cameras means there aren`t the

same theatrics that you saw, for instance, with Republicans in the

oversight hearing.  So, you do get to learn a little more and the

discussion or the Q and A is a little more sober. 

 

O`DONNELL:  And, Gene, it seems that the public is in support of what the

House Democrats are doing.  We have a poll tonight asking the question

should Congress do more to investigate Michael Cohen`s claims about Donald

Trump`s behavior?  Yes, 58 percent.  That is pretty solid support, Gene. 

 

EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALSYT:  Yes, that`s pretty solid

support.  All that polling was fascinating about how people view President

Trump`s truthfulness versus Michael Cohen`s, and it`s fascinating that

people think Congress ought to do its job. 

 

I mean, this is Congress` job.  We shouldn`t forget that.  It`s not just an

option for Congress to investigate possible potential criminal wrongdoing

by the president.  Congress has a responsibility to do that and can`t and

shouldn`t and must not just sort of sit back and let it pass as was done in

the past two years. 

 

So, Republicans wouldn`t mention the name of President Trump in that

oversight hearing, but Democrats will, I hope, Republicans ultimately will,

too, because these investigations have to be done. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Congressman, why did you ask Michael Cohen that question about

any other possible illegal acts?  Did you have reason to believe that there

are more? 

 

KRISHNAMOORTHI:  In part, yes but I was also trying to close out the

questioning and just, you know, make sure that we weren`t leaving anything

on the table, that there wasn`t something that we forgot to ask him about

that he wanted to talk about.  In this particular case, he said that he

could not talk about it because the Southern District of New York was

examining it. 

 

I was just pointing out the previous question I asked was perhaps related

to this, he said that his last communication with the Trump administration

or President Trump himself was two months after the raid but couldn`t go

into that because it was under investigation by the Southern District of

New York. 

 

O`DONNELL:  And, Gene, “The New York Times” is out tonight with more on

these checks that have been – that were written by Donald Trump to pay

reimburse Michael Cohen according to Michael Cohen, and it`s a fascinating

collection now of these checks because they change accounts.  We see in

“The Times” reporting what we already knew that there were checks written

by Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr.  But we saw that one in the

hearing written in August signed by Donald Trump. 

 

Now we`re seeing that starting in may according to the checks reproduced in

the “New York Times” tonight, all of the checks came from Donald Trump`s

what appears to be his personal checking account.  There is no indication

of any business on that particular check and signed by Donald Trump

starting in May the rest of the checks that are revealed by “The New York

Times” tonight are from that Donald J. Trump account signed by Donald Trump

going right through November into December.

 

And, Gene, for some reason, they changed accounts where that money was

coming from, switched it out of a Trump business account and moved it into

what appears to be a Donald Trump personal account.  And that may be

because Alan Weisselberg started to get very nervous about what this was.

 

ROBINSON:  It could be.  Maybe that`s the reason because just stepping back

from it, you would – it looks as if they just abandoned the cover story,

right?  If it was coming out of the trust account that that was consistent

at least with the false cover story that this was some sort of retainer

agreement.

 

If it`s going to be just Donald Trump writing a personal check to Michael

Cohen, it can`t be business attorney relationship retainer.  It is just

Trump reimbursing him for the money that he shelled out for Stormy Daniels.

 

I mean it`s – so the only thing that makes sense since it`s unlikely I

think that Donald Trump Jr. would get nervous and would say wait a minute,

perhaps it is Weisselberg said hold on a minute, this isn`t right.  We`ll

just have to see.  I suspect the Southern District of New York has an

opinion on this.

 

O`DONNELL:  Congressman, we didn`t hear any questions about that in the

hearing about why they switched accounts but now that we`ve seen so many

more of these checks as of tonight with “The New York Times” reporting, is

that something you expect follow-up on in the committee and do you expect

to hear in the committee from Alan Weisselberg about why the accounts

changed in making these payments?

 

KRISHNAMOORTHI:  Quite possibly, yes.  I think that following the hearing,

Chairman Cummings was asked who are the next witnesses that he would want

to see before the committee.  And he just simply said follow the

transcript.

 

As you know, Mr. Weisselberg appeared in the transcript multiple times. 

Can I just point out one thing?  And perhaps you alluded to this earlier. 

But not once, not once did the Republicans question the veracity of those

checks.

 

They didn`t question the signature on those checks or the fact that it came

from Donald Trump`s bank account and some of the checks and from other bank

accounts and the others.  And in fact, they didn`t impugn or attack the

credibility of any of those checks.  And so in my humble opinion, that was

a tacit admission of that evidence.

 

O`DONNELL:  And Eugene, the only mumblings that we`ve heard from any

Republican about the check is actually Lindsey Graham offering his own

opinion that it`s unusual to pay for crimes with checks.  That`s the best

the Republicans have come up with.

 

ROBINSON:  It is unusual.  It`s kind of lame.  And it`s really dumb.  But

that – none of those adjectives rules out this, having been a check used

to pay for a crime.

 

O`DONNELL:  We`re going to have to take a break there.  Congressman Raja

Krishnamoorthi and Eugene Robinson, thank you both very much for joining

our discussion tonight.

 

And when we come back, new reports that President Trump also pressured

White House staff to authorize a security clearance for Ivanka Trump.  He

was resisted in that according to the new reports and he just ordered the

security clearance himself.

 

Former director to the CIA John Brennan will be our next guest.  And at the

end of the hour, more on Lindsey Graham, more about how Lindsey Graham

humiliates Lindsey Graham including what he had to say today.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  Today, the White House refused to hand over any documents to

Congress about how Donald Trump`s son-in-law Jared Kushner received his

security clearance after “The New York Times” reported this week that

Donald Trump ordered a top secret clearance for Jared Kushner despite

objections from intelligence officials and White House Chief of Staff John

Kelly.

 

Tonight`s “CNN” is reporting that the president`s daughter, Ivanka, was

also denied a security clearance through the normal process.  According to

that report, Trump pushed Kelly and McGahn to make the decision on his

daughter and son-in-law`s clearances so it did not appear as if he was

tainting the process to favor his family.

 

Sources told “CNN” after both refused, Trump granted them their security

clearances.  Here is what Ivanka Trump said last month about her security

clearance and her husband Jared Kushner`s security clearance.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

IVANKA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP`S DAUGHTER:  There were anonymous leaks about

there being issues but the president had no involvement pertaining to my

clearance or my husband`s clearance.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  After this break, we`re going to hear from someone who knows

more about security clearances than anyone we could possibly be discussing

this with tonight.  Former CIA Director John Brennan will join us next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  In a letter to the chairman of the House Oversight Committee

Elijah Cummings tonight refusing to turn over any documents related to

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump`s security clearances, the White House

counsel wrote, “The Committee has failed to point to any authority

establishing a legitimate legislative purpose for the Committee`s

unprecedented and extraordinary intrusive demands, including the demand to

examine the entire investigative files of numerous individuals whom the

president has chosen as his senior advisors.  As I have explained in

multiple previous letters, it is clearly established as a matter of law

that the decision to grant or deny a security clearance is a discretionary

function that belongs exclusively to the Executive Branch.”

 

Joining us now, John Brennan, former CIA director.  He is now a senior

national security and intelligence analyst for MSNBC and NBC News.

 

What is at stake in this security clearance controversy between the House

and the White House?

 

JOHN BRENNAN, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, MSNBC AND

NBC NEWS:  Well, I think the integrity of the system of the security

clearance process is at stake.  If the reports are true, it sounds that

Donald Trump overruled the determination that was made by the intelligence

community that neither Ivanka Trump nor Jared Kushner should receive a

security clearance.

 

It`s unheard of a president of the United States would intervene in that

process.

 

O`DONNELL:  Can I just interrupt?  When you say unheard of, in your decades

of government service, you`re saying you personally have never heard of a

president doing this?

 

BRENNAN:  I`ve never heard of a president talking about the security

clearance of an individual, much less overruling the determination that was

made.  So this is something that is unprecedented.

 

And the fact that he did that, Donald Trump, I think the Congress has

legitimate concerns about how he is, in fact, exercising a legal authority

but doing it in a manner that really undermines again the integrity and the

purpose of security clearances.

 

O`DONNELL:  What are the reasons that security clearances for someone like

Jared Kushner or Ivanka Trump would be held up?  What would be the kind of

objections that would be raised?

 

BRENNAN:  It could be any number of things.  And I don`t know the facts

here.  But there could be some unresolved issues about foreign

entanglements, specifically financial entanglements.  Or episodes where an

individual is not deemed to be trustworthy with information or

relationships, foreign relationships that were not revealed in the security

clearance process in terms of interviews.

 

It`s not surprising given the nature of their financial and business

relationships that are ongoing, in fact, that they were denied.  Quite

frankly, I don`t believe that Donald Trump would have, except for getting

more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton, would have been approved for a

security clearance given those foreign entanglements and cavalier treatment

of classified information.

 

O`DONNELL:  So what are the kinds of things that hold up a security

clearance at this level?  How nit-picky is it?  Can it be something like,

you know, we think he didn`t tell us the exact truth about the last time he

smoked marijuana in college or is it – does it have to rise to a certain

level to be a problem?

 

BRENNAN:  I think especially for somebody who is going to be in the White

House as – at the level of assistance to the president, you want to make

sure that you do everything possible to try to resolve any outstanding

issues.  But something like that, you know, in terms of not acknowledging

smoking marijuana or something, it`s not going to hold up that clearance.

 

It would have to be something substantial and something that the CIA, the

investigators really were concerned about because it could potentially

compromise an individual.  Either because a foreign person or entity might

try to use that relationship inappropriately or that the person who is

being granted the security clearance or being in consideration might, in

fact, be mindful of those personal interests that they might pursue

contrary to U.S. National Security.

 

So the investigators take their jobs very very seriously.  I have worked

closely with them over the years and they will do everything possible to

get to the bottom of an issue.  And if they deny it, if they outright deny

it as opposed to continuing to try to resolve the issue, there must be

something substantial and significant.

 

O`DONNELL:  Based on what you`ve seen of Michael Cohen`s public testimony,

knowing that he`s going into the House Intelligence Committee again

tomorrow for yet another closed-door session, did you – in listening to

Michael Cohen`s public testimony, did you hear of things that you would

want to be explored in the private hearings with the Intelligence

Committee?

 

BRENNAN:  Well, absolutely.  As the congressman just said, in the private

meetings without the glare of the cameras, there is much more substantive

discussion and there`s not the theatrics that takes place in the open

hearings.  And so there were a lot of very tantalizing tidbits of

discussion that came up in the open hearing.

 

O`DONNELL:  What tantalized the former CIA director the most?

 

BRENNAN:  Well, I think the private things that couldn`t be discussed even

in the closed hearing, which is that these are matters under investigation

by the Southern District of New York.  Clearly, there are other

investigative threads being pulled out of concern that there was criminal

activity taking place.

 

And so I`d want to hear more from Michael Cohen about some of his personal

interactions with Donald Trump during the campaign and even subsequent to

the election and find out exactly what was the nature of those discussions.

But again, I think the special counsel`s team has counseled Michael Cohen

not to get involved in issues that are still very much a matter of criminal

investigation.

 

O`DONNELL:  Are you one of those willing to, at this stage of the game,

venture a guess about where Robert Mueller is in his process and how close

he is to filing a report? And beyond that, what you would expect from such

a report?

 

BRENNAN:  Well, I think Robert Mueller wants to be able to conclude his

work and turn over the investigative threads to the Southern District of

New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and other jurisdictions as

appropriate as we`re coming up to two years.  So I think he does want to

conclude that.

 

I wouldn`t be surprised if, for example, this week on Friday, not knowing

anything about it, but Friday is the day that the grand jury indictments

come down.  And also this Friday is better than next Friday because next

Friday is the 15th of March which is the Ides of March.

 

And I don`t think Robert Mueller will want to have that dramatic flair of

the Ides of March when he is going to be delivering what I think are going

to be his indictments, the final indictments, as well as the report that he

gives the attorney general.

 

O`DONNELL:  What makes you believe that he has more indictments?

 

BRENNAN:  Because he hasn`t addressed the issues related to criminal

conspiracy, as well as any individual –

 

O`DONNELL:  Criminal conspiracy involving the Russian –

 

BRENNAN:  The Russians, yes.  I think it was very –

 

O`DONNELL:  And that`s an area –

 

BRENNAN:  – person – U. S. personnel`s.

 

O`DONNELL:  That is an area you know something about.  That investigation

was developing while you were still on the job.

 

BRENNAN:  Well, it was in terms of looking at what was going on with the

Russians and whether or not U.S persons were actively collaborating,

colluding, cooperating, and involved in a conspiracy with them or not but

also if there is going to be any member of –

 

O`DONNELL:  Did you see enough at that stage to believe that there would

now – that that would result in indictments once investigated?

 

BRENNAN:  I thought at the time that there was going to be individuals who

were going to have issues with the Department of Justice.  Yes.  And I

think we`ve already seen a number of individuals who have been indicted. 

They either have pled guilty or have been convicted now.

 

So again, I don`t have any inside knowledge.  And I`m not talking with

anybody in special counsel`s –

 

O`DONNELL:  Yes, you do.  You have the inside knowledge of what began –

 

BRENNAN:  But not (CROSSTALK) of the investigation right now.  But I do

think also if anybody from the Trump family, extended family, is going to

be indicted, it would be in the final act of Mueller`s investigation.

 

Because Bob Mueller, and I think his team knows, that if he were to do

something, indicting a Trump family member, or if he were to go forward

with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons, that would

basically be the death now of the special counsel`s office because I don`t

believe that Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the

aftermath of those types of actions.

 

O`DONNELL:  John Brennan, thank you very much.  You have to listen to every

word in the John Brennan answer.  Thank you very much for joining us, sir. 

I really appreciate it.

 

And coming up, the humiliation of Lindsey Graham by Lindsey Graham

continues.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tried to warn voters about

what he called the world`s biggest jackass.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA:  Just stop being a jackass.  You

don`t have to run for president and be the world`s biggest jackass.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  That was 2015.  And he was talking, of course, about Donald

Trump.  Lindsey Graham is a changed man.  He now worships at the altar of

Donald Trump more fervently than most Republican senators.  And to do that,

Lindsey Graham had to change in more ways than one and publicly humiliate

himself which he has done repeatedly for Donald Trump.

 

After this break, we will show you Lindsey Graham`s latest humiliation of

Lindsey Graham.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  Remember when Lindsey Graham couldn`t stop saying jackass?  It

was when Donald Trump was running for president.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

GRAHAM:  You know, run for president but don`t be the world`s biggest

jackass.

 

What`s the reaction you`re getting to calling him jackass now repeatedly?

 

GRAHAM:  A lot of people are offended.  The jackasses are offended.  So all

I can say is that I`ve had it.  I`ve had it.  I`ve had it.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  Lindsey Graham was telling the truth about the jackass thing,

but he wasn`t telling the truth when he said I`ve had it.  In fact, Lindsey

Graham was ready to take a lot more from the jackass that turns out the

jackass phase was just something Lindsey Graham had to go through on his

way to worshipping Donald Trump and humiliating himself in the process

because before Lindsey Graham became a Trump worshiper, he said things like

this.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

GRAHAM:  He`s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.  He doesn`t

represent my party.  He doesn`t represent the values that the men and women

who wear the uniform are fighting for.

 

He`s an opportunist.  He`s not yet to be the president of the United

States.  I don`t think he has the temperament of judgment to be commander-

of-chief.

 

I think he`s a kook.  I think he`s crazy.  I think he`s unfit for office.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  And here`s what Lindsey Graham had to say about Donald Trump

tonight.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

GRAHAM:  I`m all in.  To the extent that I can help this president, I will.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  So Lindsey Graham effortly goes from “I`ve had it with Donald

Trump” to “I`m all in with Donald Trump.”  Lindsey Graham goes from he`s a

race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot, not fit to be president of the

United States.  I think he`s a kook.  I think he`s crazy” to “I`m all in.”

 

So who is the world`s biggest jackass now?  Today, Lindsey Graham met with

the president who he said is crazy and not fit to be the president of the

United States.  And according to Lindsey Graham, he gave the president some

advice about how to handle the now multiple investigations into the

president`s activities.

 

A “Bloomberg” report says Graham said he told Trump to “listen to his

lawyers, fight back appropriately, but just keep your head down and keep

doing your job.  Challenge them to fix problems.  President Clinton was a

pretty good model.  Clinton kept his focus on being the president.”

 

So now, Clinton was a pretty good model when he was under investigation. 

It turns out if you`re patient, Lindsey Graham will refute just about

everything Lindsey Graham has ever said.  As a member of the House

Judiciary Committee at the time, Lindsey Graham served as one of the

prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

 

This is what he said the standard should be for removing a president from

office.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

GRAHAM:  So the point I`m trying to make is you don`t even have to be

convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic if

this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out

of bounds in your role. Thank God you did that, because impeachment is not

about punishment.  Impeachment is about cleansing the office.  Impeachment

is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  Unfortunately for Lindsey Graham, there is no Senate process

for restoring the honor and integrity of Lindsey Graham.  That`s tonight`s

LAST WORD.  “THE 11TH HOUR” with Brian William starts now.

 

 

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY

BE UPDATED.                                                                                                    

END

 

Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the

content.>