Ukrainian Pres. Denies Trump “Pushed”. TRANSCRIPT: 9/25/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell.

Larry Pfeiffer, Sean Patrick Maloney, Wendy Sherman, Ben Rhodes, Mike Murphy, Mieke Eoyang, Mimi Rocah

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


This one is moving really fast. 




O`DONNELL:  We are now at 218 – 218 Democrats in the House favor the

impeachment proceedings against President Trump. 


MADDOW:  That`s the magic number. 


O`DONNELL:  The magic number.  It was 134 on Sunday – on Sunday, it was –

84 since Sunday. 


MADDOW:  You know, the question of how broad they`re going to make this

impeachment proceeding in terms of how broadly they`re going to draw these

articles is fascinating.  I think that it`s worth knowing, though, that

they`ve got, you know, it`s like bird in the hand, two in the bush.  At

this point if they want to impeach him specifically on this scandal of what

he admitted to today in terms of what he asked the Ukraine government for,

they`re done.  They`ve got that in hand if they want to do it. 


O`DONNELL:  Well, they also – they also have the Mueller report, and we`ve

never seen one article go forward.  There`s a lot of reasons for that,

including offering the Senate, for example, the possibility – some

senators the possibility to vote against one article or two articles, and

then vote for one.  And it only takes one.  So if you get the two-thirds

vote on one article, but then two or three other articles don`t pass, the

president is still removed. 


And so that is very likely to be a multiple article impeachment, just at

minimum, just strategically for the Senate, so you can give a Republican

senator a chance to say, I voted against three articles, but this one I

just couldn`t.  I had to do it.  


MADDOW:  I mean, we`ll see how they strategically approach this.  But I

think, A, your math there is right.  And B, this thing is moving so fast, I

think that`s – that it`s not an unreasonable thing to speculate about. 


O`DONNELL:  We shall see. 


MADDOW:  Thanks, Lawrence.


O`DONNELL:  Thank you, Rachel. 


We have now completed the first full day, and only one full day, of the

impeachment process in the House of Representatives that Speaker Nancy

Pelosi made official last evening.  And we are already at the release the

transcripts stage of the impeachment investigation.


The official impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon took

several months to get to the release the transcript stage.  President Nixon

finally was forced by subpoena to deliver the first transcripts of his

White House conversations to the House Judiciary Committee on May 3rd,

1974, and then the impeachment process really picked up speed.  And only

three months later it was over.  Richard Nixon resigned the presidency. 


The impeachment process has once again really picked up speed, but Donald

Trump won`t resign the presidency, but a lot can happen in the next three

months.  Donald Trump can be impeached, and he can be impeached before



We will begin this program tonight the way the impeachment hearings will

begin, with a verification of the document that has now become the most

important public document in the impeachment investigation of Donald Trump. 

The memorandum of telephone conversation between President Trump and

President Zelensky of Ukraine. 


Larry Pfeiffer (ph) who has prepared documents like this for President

Barack Obama`s conversations with leaders of foreign governments will start

us off tonight with just his simple reading of this memo, verifying this

memo.  Does it look like a legitimate summary of that kind of conversation? 

Is there anything strange about the memo other than what the president

actually says in the memo?  Larry Pfeiffer is the one to answer the

questions tonight. 


This memo might be outdone by other documents as the investigation proceeds

and that might happen soon.  It might be outdone by the whistle-blower`s

report which is now in the possession of the House and Senate Intelligence

Committees.  We will be joined by a member of the House Intelligence

Committee who has read the whistle-blower`s report. 


We will also be joined by two high-ranking members of the Obama

administration`s foreign policy and national security team, former

Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and former deputy national security

advisor Ben Rhodes, John Heilemann, Mike Murphy will join us to consider

the new shape of our politics now that Donald Trump has become the fourth

president in history to face an official impeachment process. 


And later in this hour, we will hear from a former federal prosecutor,

we`ll ask Mimi Rocah if she sees any federal crimes in this transcript of

the president`s conversation with the president of Ukraine.  Is this a

smoking gun?


And at the end of the hour, we`ll tell you what to watch for and what to

expect in that public hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow in the House

Intelligence Committee, a hearing that we already know will be historic. 

The acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire will testify to

the committee and explain why he blocked the inspector general`s report of

the whistle-blower`s complaint. 


Former House Intelligence Committee staffer Mieke Eoyang will tell us

exactly what the committee staff is doing right now at their desks tonight

to prepare the members of that committee for tomorrow`s hearing and what

the members will be trying to achieve in that hearing tomorrow morning,

beginning at 9:00 a.m. right here on MSNBC. 


As of tonight, this five-page memorandum of telephone conversation,

released by the White House today, has made – this is the five-page

memorandum.  It has made this 448-page Mueller report now the second-most

important public document in the impeachment investigation of President

Donald J. Trump. 


The conversation only covered two subjects.  First, military aid to

Ukraine, and second, investigating Joe Biden and Joe Biden`s son.  That`s



President Zelensky clearly wanted to talk about military aid.  President

Trump clearly only wanted to talk about Joe Biden.  President Zelensky used

the standard public manual of flattering Trump in order to get something

from him. 


He actually said to him: You are a great teacher for us.  President Trump

then said: The United States has been very good to Ukraine.  I wouldn`t say

that it`s reciprocal, necessarily, because things are happening that are

not good, but the United States has been very good to Ukraine. 


President Zelensky kept thanking President Trump profusely and repeatedly,

and then he said, thank you for your great support in the area of defense. 

We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically, we

are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense

purposes.  That was the LAST WORD said about defense spending because

Donald Trump did not respond in any way to President Zelensky`s desire to

buy more Javelin missiles from the United States. 


We have seen how eager the president is to discuss weapons sales publicly

and privately to Saudi Arabia and other countries, but instead of

responding to President Zelensky`s desire for more Javelins, Donald Trump

said, I would like you to do us a favor, though.  In the impeachment

hearings, the word “though” will be studied in that sentence.  The Oxford

English Dictionary defines though in that usage to mean introducing an

additional statement restricting or modifying the preceding statement. 


So, saying I would like you to do us a favor, though, immediately after

someone asks for something, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is

putting a restriction on the thing that was just requested. 


Here was Donald Trump`s restriction.  I would like you to find out what

happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.  Trump then suggests that

Ukraine has information that could discredit Robert Mueller`s

investigation, and this phone call is taking place the day after Robert

Mueller testified to the House of Representatives. 


Donald Trump says, I would like to have the attorney general call you or

your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.  As you saw

yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man

named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it

started with Ukraine.  Whatever you can do, it`s very important that you do

it if that`s possible.


President Zelensky then eagerly says, I guarantee as the president of

Ukraine that all of the investigations will be done openly and candidly. 

That I can assure you.


ABC News is reporting tonight President Zelensky knew that Donald Trump was

going to ask him about investigating Joe Biden.  President Zelensky does

appear ready for that.  And it is President Zelensky who first brings up

Rudy Giuliani before Donald Trump mentions Giuliani`s name. 


President Zelensky says: I will personally tell you that one of my

assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very

much Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once

he comes to Ukraine. 


Donald Trump then says, Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man.  He was the

mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like you to – like him

to call you.  I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. 


Rudy very much knows what`s happening, and he is a very capable guy.  If

you could speak to him, that would be great. 


President Trump goes on to say, the other thing.  That means there`s

another thing that is restricting President Zelensky`s desire for more

military equipment from the United States.  The other thing, there`s a lot

of talk about Biden`s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of

people want to find out about that.  So whatever you can do with the

attorney general would be great.  Biden went around bragging that he

stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to



President Zelensky says: The next prosecutor general will 100 percent my

person, my candidate who will be approved by the parliament and will start

as a new prosecutor in September.  He or she will look into the situation. 


President Trump says, I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am

also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom

of it.  I`m sure you will figure it out. 


President Zelensky then tries to buy goodwill with Donald Trump, as so many

foreign governments have, by telling him that he paid to stay in a Trump

Hotel.  President Zelensky says: Last time I traveled to the United States,

I stayed in New York near central park, and I stayed at the Trump Tower. 


President Trump says, I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. 

Thank you.  Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free

to call.  Give us a date, and we`ll work that out.  I will look forward to

seeing you.  President Zelensky says thank you very much, they both say

thank you a couple more times.  President Zelensky says, bye-bye. 


It`s all there.  In Donald Trump`s own words, collusion with a foreign

government to help Donald Trump`s reelection campaign by hurting a

candidate running against Donald Trump.  There`s a lot of talk about

Biden`s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want

to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general

would be great, whatever you can do. 


That`s what the president of the United States wanted in that conversation

from the president of Ukraine, whatever you can do to help the reelection

campaign of Donald Trump.  That is the Donald Trump, Jr., meeting at Trump

Tower with Russians during the presidential campaign on steroids. 


Leading off our discussion tonight is Larry Pfeiffer.  He`s a former

director of the White House Situation Room where he managed President

Obama`s phone calls with other heads of state.  He is also a former chief

of staff to the director of the CIA. 


Larry, thank you for coming back tonight.  We have the transcript.  You`ve

seen the transcript. 


And I just want to get a basic verification from you if you can give it to

us based on what you`ve seen.  Other than the content and what the

president is saying to the president of Ukraine, does this look like the

standard version of this? 





Absolutely, it looks like every memorandum of a telephone conversation I

saw during my time at the White House in terms of its for matt, in terms of

the caveats at the bottom in the footnote, in terms of the markings.  At a

certain level, you almost have to applaud the president for releasing this,

what appears to be full transcript. 


O`DONNELL:  There are a couple of ellipses in this and some people are

pointing to that, the little dot-dot-dot, what that might be, are they

leaving out significant words there, do you think? 


PFEIFFER:  My guess – my best guess is either, A, there was a pause, a

natural pause in the conversation and they wanted to reflect that.  The

second possibility is that in the raw transcript that was created in the

Sit Room, they may have had some clunky notation indicating garbled words

or unidentified words.  And someone on the NSC staff in an attempt to make

it look more elegant removed the clunky notation and just put the dot-dot-



O`DONNELL:  And, Larry, in your experience of a document like this, what

percentage of – in your experience in the Obama White House, was accurate,

would have matched an audiotape?  Does it get into the 90 percent

territory, 95 percent, 85 percent? 


PFEIFFER:  Well, I think the NSC staffer would be doing his best attempt to

take what would have come from the Sit Room as almost a pure transcript of

a conversation.  He would have massaged it in an effort to make the

language a little more – flow a little more beautifully, perhaps a little

more elegant phraseology, making sure the nouns and the adjectives and the

verbs matched.  So I would say that there would likely not be an attempt to

doctor the actual transcript or change the meanings of the words. 


O`DONNELL:  And finally, Larry, anything unusual to your eye in this



PFEIFFER:  You know, from – probably the most unusual thing – I sat

through a lot of congratulatory phone calls President Obama made to world

leaders upon their reelection or their election, and those generally are

fairly pro forma, fairly short.  They are congratulating the individual,

talking about what good relations we have.  And if there are trouble areas,

they may just be mentioned at a very broad strategic level and the

president would suggest that we need to get our people together and I know

we`ll work it out, something along those lines.  Not anything of this

specific transactional nature. 


O`DONNELL:  Larry Pfeiffer, thank you very much for starting us off

tonight.  I really appreciate it. 


PFEIFFER:  You`re welcome.  You bet. 


O`DONNELL:  Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney

of New York.  He`s a member of the House Intelligence Committee.  He has

read the whistleblower`s actual complaint earlier tonight, and will be

questioning the acting director of national intelligence tomorrow morning

in that hearing that begins at 9:00 a.m. 


Congressman Maloney, thank you very much for joining us on this important

night and we hope you can keep coming back as this proceeds. 


What can you tell us about the whistle-blower report?  How does it compare

and how much does it add to what we see in the telephone transcript? 


REP. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (D-NY):  Well, I`m not going to get into the

substance of the report.  Obviously, it remains classified.  So I want to

be respectful and careful about that. 


What I can tell you is that there`s going to be some very tough questions

tomorrow about why it was withheld from the Congress. 


O`DONNELL:  And does the whistle-blower`s report go beyond the phone call? 

Does it have a scope wider than just this one phone call? 


MALONEY:  Well, again, I`m not going to comment on the substance of the

complaint or whether it has any relation or not to anything that`s been

publicly reported.  I just can`t do that at this stage, Lawrence. 


You know, it`s my hope that all of this material is declassified eventually

and made available to the public.  I think there is a very important need

for the public to see as much as possible.  And I`m certainly going to be

pushing for that. 


But tomorrow is going to be about the role the DNI played and Department of

Justice played in with molding this complaint and the contents from



O`DONNELL:  What do you think the likelihood is at this point of the

whistleblower`s complaint becoming public eventually? 


MALONEY:  Well, obviously, there is always the possibility that it leaks. 

If you`re talking about a legal process, that would require



Now, bear in mind, it`s a good point to remind people that this

whistleblower is endeavoring to follow the law.  This person is courageous

and coming forward with critical information that the inspector general

deemed urgent, credible, and the heart of the DNI`s responsibilities. 


And this person is doing it the right way, the legal way.  And this person

has been let down by an attorney general and by a director of national

intelligence who, who went outside the law, who went outside the statute

and found a reason to keep it from Congress.  That`s a serious issue. 


O`DONNELL:  The first thing you were able to read today was the transcript

of the president`s phone call with President Zelensky.  What was your

reaction to that? 


MALONEY:  Well, I`m happy to talk about that.  Thank you for talking about

a public document. 


Look, I thought it was – I thought it was – can I tell you, it broke my

heart, to be honest with you.  I mean, I know it`s easy to get kind of

partisan about this, but when I read a document where a president of the

United States – any president of the United States – is muscling a newly

elected foreign leader who is in a desperate position, with the Russians

having the next part of his country, invading the eastern part of his

country as well, and that president is clearly, clearly trying to get that

person – pressuring that person to dredge up a fake investigation, to

smear a political opponent in the context of that president raising the

need for military aid, I mean, there is a quid – there is a quo – it is

all right there. 


I am deeply, deeply depressed about the fact we have come to a point where

an American president would say such things.  But I`m also resolved that

president be accountable for it and that the law means something, this

country stand up for what`s right. 


O`DONNELL:  This is the day that the House of Representatives arrived at

the magic number of 218, 218 Democrats now supporting the impeachment

process against this president.  How did that land in the House today, that



MALONEY:  Well, look, I think most of us have believed for a few days, at

least, that the support would be there.  I think what`s more important is,

are the facts there?  This is a town where, where sometimes the evidence is

more serious than the people. 


I think it`s important that we follow the facts, the law, the evidence.  I

think everybody ought to take a deep breath.  I think this thing is moving

fast and I understand that.  But these are serious issues.  It`s important

to get our facts straight.  It`s important to know what we`re talking

about, and to make our case. 


And I think that`s going to take some time.  And I think people are going

to need to be a little patient with that.  But I can tell you the

Democratic Party is absolutely unified on the issue of getting to the

bottom of it and getting the facts out. 


O`DONNELL:  Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, thank you very much for

joining us on this important night.  Really appreciate it. 


MALONEY:  My pleasure. 


O`DONNELL:  And when we come back from this break, the professionals, the

national security and diplomatic professionals, former Undersecretary of

State Wendy Sherman and former deputy national secretary Ben Rhodes, both

from the Obama administration.  We`ll bring their expertise to what is the

first known case of a president of the United States asking the president

of a foreign country to help his reelection campaign by attacking a

candidate running against the president.




O`DONNELL:  President Trump and President Zelensky discussed their now

public phone call with reporters today at the United Nations. 




VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT:  We had I think good phone call. 

It was normal.  We spoke about many things and I think, and you read it,

that nobody push it – pushed me, yes. 






O`DONNELL:  Pressure is irrelevant.  The only legal point that matters is

that Donald Trump very clearly asked President Zelensky for help in trying

to harm a candidate running for president against Donald Trump.  That is

now an irrefutable fact, and it is a fact big enough to get Donald Trump



Joining our discussion now, is Ambassador Wendy Sherman, as undersecretary

of state in the Obama administration.  She was lead negotiator in the Iran

nuclear deal.  She`s also an MSNBC global affairs contributor. 


Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to President Obama is

with us.  He`s an MSNBC political analyst. 


Ben, let me start with you.  You`ve been on these calls. 




O`DONNELL:  You`ve been one of the number of people listening when it was

President Obama.  You`ve read these documents.  This is my first.  I`ve

never read one of these before today.  It`s my first. 


I imagine your hands shaking holding this in your hands today. 


RHODES:  Yes, I mean, Lawrence, I actually got the transcript of every

phone call President Obama made.  So, I`ve read hundreds and hundreds of

those and I`ve never, ever seen anything like this. 


I mean, first of all, you have to consider the context of Ukraine.  And, of

course, the president of Ukraine is saying what President Trump wants to

hear there.  His country is besieged.  You know, Crimea has been annexed. 

They are being killed in eastern Ukraine.  He is dependent on this aid

which is a lifeline for Ukraine. 


And for the president of the United States to essentially be leveraging aid

that is a life line to a country that has been invaded by an adversary of

the United States, because all he cares about is not the national interest,

not the people of Ukraine.  All he cares about is his own political

interest, is the definition of corruption. 


And I`ll tell you, Lawrence, the other thing I think, we know about this

because of the whistle-blower.  There is one little window open to one

phone call.  Where else is this happening? 


If this is – everything we know about how Trump operates, is this

happening with Saudi Arabia?  Is this happening with Russia, right?  So, to

me, this is a peek at how Trump actually operates and what that shows you

is the complete and utter corruption of American foreign policy. 


O`DONNELL:  Wendy Sherman, your reaction? 



similar.  I found that press conference so painful today.  Zelensky was

trying so hard to walk this very difficult line, flattering the president,

saying he didn`t get pressured, while at the same time saying we`re an

independent country.  I can`t ask a prosecutor to do a particular

something.  He was trying to show he`s not a corrupt leader, which is

essential in modern Ukraine, given its history. 


And at the same time, he had to sit next to the president of the United

States who said, hey, why don`t you and Putin get together and sort of work

this problem out?  Putin is killing his people.  Just extraordinary. 


O`DONNELL:  Yes.  Ben, the underlying policy with Ukraine is one of the

things that isn`t getting focused on much here.  But I do want to show that

moment of Donald Trump today. 


Here is the President Zelensky in what he calls a war.  He used the word

war today, repeatedly publicly about his situation with Russia.  And here

is what Donald Trump said about that. 




TRUMP:  I really hope that Russia – because I really believe that

President Putin would like to do something.  I really hope that you and

President Putin get together and can solve your problem.  That would be a

tremendous achievement.  And I know you`re trying to do that. 




O`DONNELL:  Ben, this is FDR telling Winston Churchill, I hope you can work

this out with Hitler. 


RHODES:  Yes.  I mean, Putin has taken a piece of the territory of Ukraine. 

Putin is backing people, arming people who are killing people in Eastern

Ukraine.  This is a – we spent the last 2 1/2 years of the Obama

administration – and Wendy was front and center in this, too – mobilizing

Europeans to impose sanctions on Russia, figuring out what assistance

packages could go to Ukraine to help weather this incredible storm they`re



And Donald Trump sees this nothing as more than a mere sideshow.  What he

cares about is on that call, talk to Rudy Giuliani, talk to Bill Barr, talk

to my kind of personal lawyers and it`s, first of all, bad thing the

attorney general seems to be a personal lawyer for the president of the

United States, about this corruption investigation. 


Because the other thing I would say, the decision to recommend that they

get rid of that prosecutor was an inter-agency process – inter-agency

meaning the State Department comes together, the NSC, White House and

others.  This person was at the heart of a lot of corruption had nothing to

do with Hunter Biden.  So, he`s inventing conspiracy theories to suit his

own politics and asking a man who just got elected to a country has been

invaded by its neighbor to facilitate these conspiracy theories, and on the

issue that really matters, that Russia invaded his country, he`s saying,

oh, you know, I hope you work it out.  I`m sure Putin is committed to doing

that.  That`s taking Putin`s side just like he did in Helsinki when he said

Putin didn`t interfere in our election. 


O`DONNELL:  Uh-huh.


And, Wendy, the Europeans wanted this prosecutor out of the way in Ukraine. 


SHERMAN:  Absolutely. 


O`DONNELL:  Because they felt just nothing serious was happening with this



SHERMAN:  Absolutely, the Europeans were very much in line with what we

were trying to do to get rid of this corrupt prosecutor. 


And the other thing here is the whole reason we`re here is because that

Ukraine needed military aid.  It wanted, as he said today, those Javelins. 

And the president knew that created leverage. 


And you see how that comes up in the conversation.  The president says,

yes, but there really hasn`t been any reciprocity.  And I`d like to ask you

a favor, though.  And so, we know that this is all connected. 


So when people say there`s nothing direct here, I think it`s plain as day. 


O`DONNELL:  Ben, how many people would have heard a phone call like this

and would be aware of the contents much a phone call like this? 


RHODES:  A pretty good number, Lawrence.  I mean, you`d have several people

in the Oval Office for that call.  The leadership of the NSC staff, the

relevant people who work on Ukraine in the NSC.  People like your guest

Larry Pfeiffer who we worked with in the Situation Room, listening and

making a record of the call. 


And then usually, the transcript is disseminated.  And the report seems to

suggests that part of what got the attention of the whistle-blower is they

were handling this call differently.  They were trying to restrict access

to the transcript of this call. 


I think it is very important for your viewers to understand, it`s not just

this transcript.  What else was going on?  Why was Rudy Giuliani flying out

to Ukraine?  Why was the State Department – again, based on reports we

read – directing Rudy Giuliani to be involved in this at all?  He`s a

private citizen who represents the president of the United States. 


So we shouldn`t see this transcript as the end of the story.  I think it`s,

again, a window into a much broader corruption of our policy towards

Ukraine, towards Russia. 


And front and center in all these matters is not the American people.  And

keep in mind, that`s our tax dollars.  That assistance going to Ukraine,

that`s our tax dollars being used like a part of Trump`s campaign war chest

to leverage, again, a foreign leader to do his bidding.


And so, I`d like to see us pull all these different threads around not just

this phone call, but Ukraine policy in general. 


O`DONNELL:  Wendy, all these years on the call, one whistle-blower, only



SHERMAN: Yes, I think we`re in a time where people are terrified. To become

a whistleblower, you have to be pretty sure of what you`re doing.


And if you`re an intelligence officer, you know that your life is on the

line, and that intelligence officers work not to be known by people. They

work to be quietly doing the work to protect us and protect our national



So for this whistleblower, knowing particularly this President and this

administration, which believes in punishing people, after all the President

talked about our then ambassador to Ukraine, who he basically said was

doing bad things and he was going to take care of her, which he did which

is to push her out of government.


This is a punitive administration and so this whistleblower must have

really believed there was corruption here. And we saw the President, as he

always does, he talks about how everybody else is corrupt, to deflect from

his own deep corruption.


O`DONNELL: Ben, I think the disturbing thought of the night I think for the

audiences, this is just one phone call.







O`DONNELL: This is just one phone call, one whistleblower.


Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Ben Rhodes, thank you both for joining us

tonight, really appreciate it.


When we come back, Republican strategist Mike Murphy says 30 Republican

Senators would vote to convict Donald Trump in an impeachment trial in the

Senate and remove him from office, if it were a secret ballot.


Mike Murphy and John Heilemann join us next.






MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: So I can tell you this, one Republican

Senator told me, if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican Senators would vote

to impeach Trump.




O`DONNELL: That was veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy on MSNBC

earlier today. In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Mike Murphy writes the

easy to dodge days for Senate Republicans are coming to an end. Voters

deserve stark clarity in the wake of Trump`s dealings with Ukraine, and

there is one certain way to get it, the Democratic House must impeach the

President and force the question on the Senate, yay or nay on Donald Trump.


Joining us now is Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, who has advised both

Mitt Romney`s and Senator John McCain`s Presidential campaigns. Also with

us, John Heilemann, co-host and executive producer at SHOWTIME, The Circus.

Both are MSNBC and NBC News analysts.


Mike, what it - what got you to the point where you want to see these

Republican Senators called on a vote on it - on conviction of Donald Trump

in the Senate?


MURPHY: Well, I think it`s the issue that American politics is hanging on

and it`s time for clarity. Look, I`ve been a never-Trumper for a while. I

thought impeachment would have been a political mistake for the Democrats,

go out and beat them.


But this Ukrainian thing is outrageous and it`s going to get worse. Every

couple of hours, we learn about more concern. So I think the President has

clearly violated his oath of office and I don`t think Republican

officeholders, as much as they don`t like the idea, should be able to

answer those questions about Donald Trump.


The only way to forge clarity and find out where they really are, do they

want to own Trump and fight his corner despite all this, or do they want to

hopefully do the right thing or what might be the smart thing for them in

the future politically. You got to have a yes/no vote; an impeachment, as

crude of a tool as it is, will force that.


O`DONNELL: And Mike, what about Republicans who are in tough re-election

situations, or the other interesting vote is Republicans who are not

running for re-election, Republicans who will be retiring, this is their

final important vote of their careers?


MURPHY: Yes, again, I think if this keeps spreading, the whistleblower -

you know it`s all coming on dribs and drabs, but there apparently are

witnesses, the White House behavior, if this keeps growing, and it does fit

the pattern of Donald Trump`s behavior to be doing this sort of thing on

the phone with a foreign leader, the politics of it could start to change.


And in the front line of that will be the people like Susan Collins and

Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, people who are up in these purple states

looking at really tough re-elects, and a up-down vote is certainly

uncomfortable for them, I`m sympathetic there, but it`s the clarity we got

to have now. Republicans - there`s a cancer on the Republican Party and

it`s time to face it and take a side.


O`DONNELL: And John Heilemann, 218 - today`s the day they hit 218 in the

House of Representatives, 218 Democrats in favor of the impeachment

process. It takes 218 to impeach Donald Trump.



funny I saw Adam Schiff a little bit earlier tonight and we`re talking

about this moment, and I think when the history of this is written, the

moment when Schiff along with Nancy Pelosi last weekend came out and said

after all this reluctance that he like the Speaker had on political

grounds, even though he thought the President had committed high crimes and

misdemeanors for a long time, to suddenly shift - Schiff`s shift and talk

about crossing the rubicon over the weekend was a signal moment.


And I asked him, I said, which is it, did the politics change in the sense

that the vulnerable freshmen, these Democrats who are in swing districts,

where Nancy Pelosi was trying to protect them by not making them do

impeachment, did that - did the calculus change because of this egregious

behavior, or was this behavior just so egregious that the politics no

longer mattered.


And that in the end is what Schiff basically said. He said, look I think

that the 30,000 foot thing was, Democrats looked at this and said the

President of the United States is trying to do exactly again in 2020 what

he did in 2016, except this time he`s trying to do it as the President of

the United States and not just as the candidate. And that in the end was

just intolerable to pretty much everybody in the Democratic caucus.


O`DONNELL: And Mike, it`s kind of two sides of the same coin. If the

offense is bad enough, then the politics of it, the political calculation

does change.


MURPHY: Right. Yes, no I think it totally has. I mean I think it`s a pipe

dream for the Republicans to think that somehow impeachment will help them,

because one or two things are going to happen.


It`s either going to get bad enough that Republicans are going to start

defecting, which will cripple the President, or the Republicans will go

into a - in the Senate will go into a Merrick Garland mode and just

stonewall this thing all the way, and the Democratic frustration is going

to go absolutely off the charts.


And remember, we`re dealing with a President with lousy polling numbers

here. He is not operating from a position of strength, it`s a position of

weakness. The only question is, will the Democrats screw this up by

nominating somebody that can change the topic of the election, and this

impeachment procedure just staples that question to Donald Trump`s head. So

I think that actually is a political benefit for the Democrats.


Now, the last thing I`d say quickly, I can see a scenario, if you`re a Cory

Gardner or Elizabeth (ph) or Collins, it`s not perfect for you, but you`re

better with Pence. That helps you change the subject to a dangerous

Democrat, even though clearly Pence would have his own shortcomings. Trump

is going to be a trouble factory going forward for anybody even in purple



O`DONNELL: You know what, Susan Collins in Maine is in what could be a

struggling re-election. Go ahead John.


HEILEMANN: You know, Lawrence, I was just going to say that I agree with

everything Mike said, and I think the one other way the Democrats can screw

this up is not just in terms of who they nominate, but how do they handle

these impeachment hearings.


And one of the most interesting debates I hear right now is the strategic

question. Do you - as you proceed towards this impeachment inquiry, do you

make it an omnibus thing, where it`s not just about this Ukrainian scandal,

but it`s also about the obstruction of justice from the Mueller

investigation, about the hush money payments in the Southern District of

New York, about emoluments, about everything that Donald Trump has done

wrong, or do you try to remain focused in a laser-like way on this

particular sin, on this particular crime, on this particular dereliction of



And I think the smart - it sounds to me increasingly like the smart

argument is the one that says let`s just stay focused on this one thing.

Don`t load up the sled, don`t overload the sled. And there`s going to be a

lot of people on the Left who are going to want to take on all of Donald

Trump`s crimes, where I think the smarter play is just to focus on this one

thing that basically proves it all.


The object lesson here, and if you can win that argument, you win the whole

thing politically.


O`DONNELL: Well, on Nixon and Clinton, they did not contemplate just a

single article of impeachment, especially because they want to give the

other party the chance in the Senate to vote against - to vote with Donald

Trump on two or three counts, and then vote against him on one. And Mike,

it only takes one.


MURPHY: Yes, look, I agree with John. Keep it simple, keep it focused on

the story people can understand that I think is going to have more

corroborating facts, and make that the thing. Don`t widen it up, so the

President`s defenders can make complicated sub parts of the investigation,

the way to confuse people about this.


Real simple, President using the power of American foreign policy to shake

down a vulnerable country to further his own political career, it doesn`t

get simpler or worse than that.


O`DONNELL: John Heilemann, who is the Donald Trump who you saw today at the

United Nations? I ask you because you saw him, you covered him closely on

the campaign trail in 2016, and I mean you were right in there with your

microphones and your cameras. I saw you close to him on the trail, you had

a lot of interview opportunities with him. That was a lifeless Donald Trump

at the United Nations.


HEILEMANN: I think deflated, and if not wholly defeated yet, Lawrence, I

think you started to see signs of what a defeated Donald Trump would look

like. I have rarely seen - I`ve seen the President much crazier, I`ve seen

him distracted, I`ve seen him seen addled, I`ve seen him in a million ways

perform poorly.


But today, he seemed limp, and as if you know the air had been kind of

taken out, and I keep saying deflated. He looked like a - bit of like a

beaten dog today, and that`s a little bit of - a little bit mean to dogs.


I think if you start to think about where this could go, that`s the Donald

Trump I think you`ll be seeing more and more, as this thing encroaches

further and further on to his political capital, as his approval rating

falls further and further, as his base finally starts to erode.


And I think to Mike`s point, when the numbers start to get to the point

where Republicans just doing the straight math look at Donald Trump and

he`s more of a liability than an asset, and they start to abandon him. That

day will come.


O`DONNELL: There is still time for the Republicans to find another nominee

for President. John Heilemann, Mike Murphy, thank you very much for joining

us tonight. Really appreciate it.


And when we come back, is this a smoking gun, I`ll ask former federal

prosecutor Mimi Rocah next.






SEN. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): A quid pro quo is, if you do not do what I

want, I`m going to punish you. Read this transcript, no rational person

would conclude that the President of the United States was threatening to

cut off aid to the Ukraine, unless they did something against Joe Biden and

his son.




O`DONNELL: Joining us now is Mimi Rocah, former Assistant US Attorney in

the Southern District of New York and an MSNBC legal contributor. Is this

transcript of the telephone call a smoking gun?



YORK AND AN MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. I for more than 10 years

listened to public officials, mobsters, do bribery and extortion schemes.

And honestly, half of them were more subtle than this.


I don`t know what Lindsey Graham is talking about there. Any person just

with common sense, you don`t need to be a lawyer, to look at this knows

exactly what Donald Trump was doing there. Zelensky brings up something

they want, they need - they need these weapons, they need protection from

Putin. They have been promised those.


He says, how about those, can I get those? And Trump pivots immediately, it

is tied to it, with as you pointed out, well though we want a favor, and

the favor is open this investigation. I don`t even know that Trump cares

what the answer is.


He wants an investigation on his opponent. That is the service he`s trying

to get for free essentially using his public position, the power of the

purse. That is an extortion and there are multiple other possible criminal

violations. But it is definitely a smoking gun.


O`DONNELL: The Department of Justice report on this, which The New York

Times has taken a look at, says that they quote Inspector General Atkinson

saying it could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in

violation of the campaign finance laws.


ROCAH: Well that`s right. I mean look, like I said, there are many

different I think possible criminal statutes that could apply here. A

solicitation of something of value to help a campaign is one of them.


The idea that this Department of Justice said no campaign finance crime

here without any investigation is really just unfathomable to me. And the

fact that they - apparently the Department of Justice didn`t even consider

or mention any other criminal statutes.


I mean like I said, I think extortion is probably the most likely one. And

remember, and I know you know this but it`s good to remind our viewers,

while these I think warrant criminal investigation, and there are other

people besides Trump who should be looked at and investigated for these,

for Trump it doesn`t need to be a federal crime. It is an abuse of power.


But I think you very clearly have a quid pro quo here that honestly I

didn`t see in most mob conversations. I didn`t see this clearly.


O`DONNELL: So you agree with Adam Schiff, Adam Schiff`s a former prosecutor

too, he said this was classic mafia style talk.


ROCAH: Absolutely. I mean - and nobody goes around saying what Lindsey

Graham is suggesting. That`s not how it`s done. I mean no one - I don`t

want to say isn`t that dumb, but people know their conversations are being

listened to.


So you say - it`s the implication right, I think this is pretty explicit,

but he`s saying you do this, the investigation, if you want that, the

weapons, the protection.


O`DONNELL: And he`s very specific about Biden - he said - he`s talking

about Biden and he says, so if you can look into it, and he means Biden, if

you can look into it, and he`s asking him to investigate Joe Biden.


ROCAH: Exactly. I mean it`s the classic sort of, I need something from you,

you want something from me, that`s a quid pro quo, and that`s how they do



Mimi Rocah has closed the case. Mimi Rocah, thank you very much for joining

us tonight, really appreciate it.


And when we come back, the first hearing under the new official procedural

architecture of impeachment in the House of Representatives begins tomorrow

at 9 a.m., you`ll want to watch every minute of that, if you can.


Mieke Eoyang is a former staff member of the House Intelligence Committee,

where that hearing will take place. She will tell us what you should be

looking for in tomorrow`s hearing in her old committee room. That`s next.






REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I found the allegations deeply disturbing. I also

found them very credible. I think it`s a travesty that this complaint was

withheld as long as it was, because it was an urgent matter, it is an

urgent matter, and there was simply no basis to keep this from the





O`DONNELL: For the LAST WORD of the hour, we turn to Mieke Eoyang, a former

staff member of the House Intelligence Committee. She is the Vice President

of the National Security Program at the Third Way.


And Mieke, if you were at your old desk at the Committee, you would be

there right now close to 11:00 p.m. and probably past midnight.





O`DONNELL: You worked with Adam Schiff and other members of that Committee

who are going to be questioning tomorrow. What is the staff doing right now

to prepare for tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.?


EOYANG: Yes, right now, what they`re doing is they are going over - those

that have seen the whistleblower complaint and they`re putting together

lines of questions for the members of Congress.


I think there are three main areas where you would want to have members of

Congress nail down acting DNI Maguire. The first is on his reaction to this

whistleblower complaint. Does he share the IG`s concerns that this is

serious, this is credible, this goes to the heart of his mission in terms

of trying to protect foreign influence on the United States. Because, as

Schiff said, these things seem very disturbing. Readers of this complaint

have been disturbed by it. They think something needs to be done.


The second thing is you want to nail down what was the process that

prevented Maguire from moving this thing forward to the Committee

expeditiously? Was the White House involved? What did DOJ say? Why did they

interpret it the way that they did?


But finally, and I think this is the most important point, you have to

wonder what Maguire is going to say to the Intelligence Community employees

who are watching him. Because, how he handles this whistleblower complaint,

will have tremendous implications for everyone in the intelligence

community and how they think about whether or not they - when they see some

wrongdoing, how do they handle that?


Do they think that they`re going to be blocked from getting to the

appropriate overseers? Are they going to think their only choice is to

commit the crime of leaking classified information to the press? This is

really important for his work force.


O`DONNELL: Mieke, we know the members have read the, by now, the

whistleblower`s report that`s made available to them today. Do any of the

staff or some of the higher ranking staff members also read that

whistleblower`s report?


EOYANG: Typically, when things are held to a small number of members, there

are a very limited number of staffers who also read the report, especially

in something like this. There have been a few times historically where

staffers have been prohibited from seeing that material. But with something

like this, given the gravity of this and how frequently it`s discussed in

the media, I think that they are going to have some staffers who have read

into this report.


O`DONNELL: So, we saw Sean Patrick Maloney as our lead guest tonight

talking about the whistleblower report and he can`t say a word, can say

anything about it. Tomorrow`s hearing is about that. How does this hearing

work when the big thing in the room that everyone wants to talk about, no

one can say anything about?


EOYANG: Yes, look, the DNI can declassify portions of this. There are

things that he can say about what happened. And all the conversations about

process, the White House weighing in, Department of Justice weighing in,

those are not classified facts, right?


The Director of National Intelligence can discuss those things with the

Committee and he can also talk about whether or not he agrees with the

Inspector General. And so, I would expect the members of the Congress to

really push him on those things and how he understands what the risk is of

foreign interference here.


O`DONNELL: And Mieke, how much cooperation at this stage is there with the

Republican staff? I know in the pre-Trump era, there would have been a lot

of cooperation between the parties on situations like this.


EOYANG: Yes, I think under Chairman Schiff, what I`ve heard from former

colleagues is that things have gotten better. And when you see the Senate

voting 100 to nothing to release this report and to have the whistleblower

complaint come forward, and you start to see Republicans express unease

about the allegations here, I think you`re going to have more bipartisan

concern about protecting whistleblowers than you might have previously.


O`DONNELL: Mieke Eoyang, thank you for your guidance on what to watch

tomorrow. Really appreciate it.


That is tonight`s LAST WORD. “THE 11TH HOUR” with Brian Williams starts








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