Rep. Katie Hill casts her final vote. TRANSCRIPT: 10/31/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell.

Guests:
Jamie Raskin, Neal Katyal, Tess Bridgeman, Ron Klain, Bill Weld, Ezra Klein
Transcript:

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

 

And I hope someone tells Donald Trump he`s still going to have file New

York tax returns every year since he derives a substantial amount of income

from New York.  So he doesn`t escape filing the New York tax returns. 

There will probably be some state tax benefit for him going to a state like

Florida that doesn`t have a state income tax. 

 

But he will get to vote in a swing state.  Maybe that`s the most important

benefit. 

 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Yes, I don`t know.  I mean, when it comes to

him getting advice on legal matters, you`ve seen what his lawyers try to

argue in court.  I`m not sure anybody`s going to tell him anything. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Rachel, before you go, we`ve got some breaking news from the

“Washington examiner”.  President Trump did an interview with the

“Washington Examiner” tonight.  And I think we now know what the new chant

is going to be.  Remember build the wall? 

 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

 

O`DONNELL:  I think it`s going to be “read the transcript”.  Donald Trump

in this interview told the “Washington Examiner” that he has all sorts of

plans for surviving this impeachment investigation, including t-shirts with

the slogan “read the transcript.”

 

MADDOW:  He remembers that when the country read the transcript that`s when

he started getting impeached, right? 

 

O`DONNELL:  I don`t know what he knows.  I don`t know.  I don`t know. 

 

MADDOW:  Amazing. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Thank you, Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  Thanks, Lawrence.

 

O`DONNELL:  Well, on this historic night when the House of Representatives

voted on the procedures for impeaching the president of the United States,

I am very pleased that we will be joined once again by Ezra Klein who first

discussed the subject of impeaching Donald Trump with me on this program

two years ago when the Trump presidency already had many of us considering

the impeachment of Donald Trump. 

 

Ezra wrote the most important article of that period about impeachment,

arguing that the process should be demystified and approached without fear. 

He said then: We have grown too afraid of the consequences of impeachment

and two complacent about the consequences of leaving an unfit president in

office. 

 

Not anymore.  At the end of this hour, Ezra Klein will join us to consider

what America is about to learn about the impeachment of the president of

the United States. 

 

But first, now, there are two, two witnesses who have testified to the

House impeachment inquiry who were listening in on President Trump`s phone

call with the president of Ukraine.  The phone call that is going to get

the president of the United States impeached no matter how often he tells

people to read the transcript. 

 

The second witness to testify about listening to the president`s phone call

gave his testimony while the House of Representatives was taking a historic

vote.  A vote no member of Congress ever expect to cast, a vote on a

resolution authorizing and detailing the procedures for an impeachment

inquiry of the president of the United States. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  Hopefully, as we go forward with this with the

clarity of purpose, a clarity of procedure, a clarity of fact, a clarity of

truth, it`s about the truth.  It`s about the Constitution.  We will do so

in a way that brings people together that is healing rather than dividing,

and that is how we will honor our oath of office.  I urge an aye vote and

yield back the balance of my time. 

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL:  It was a party line vote with 232 in favor and 196 opposed. 

All Republicans opposed the resolution.  Justin Amash who left the

Republican Party not long after reading the Mueller report and is now an

independent member of Congress voted in favor of the impeachment

resolution.  Two Democratic congressmen who represent districts that were

won by Donald Trump voted against the resolution, but both of those

Democrats, Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey

said they will make a decision on impeaching the president only after all

of the evidence has been publicly presented. 

 

So the likelihood tonight when all of the evidence is publicly presented,

there will be at least 232 votes in the House of Representatives to impeach

Donald John Trump and send him to trial in the United States Senate,

because the phone call cannot get better, that`s the problem.  The rough

transcript of President Trump`s phone call with the president of Ukraine

remains the most damning evidence in the case against the president.  That

phone call did get a bit worse on Tuesday when Lieutenant Colonel Alexander

Vindman testified that he heard the president make one more reference to

Joe Biden that does not appear in the White House rough transcript in the

section where Donald Trump was asking for Ukraine`s help in his re-election

campaign by urging Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. 

 

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is, of course, a nonpartisan witness.  He has no

history of occupational association with Democrats or Republicans.  Today`s

witness to the phone call is a career-long partisan Republican who served

on Republican congressional staffs before joining the White House staff. 

Tim Morrison has been serving as senior director for European affairs at

the White House and the National Security Council. 

 

Tim Morrison is leaving that job, and his employment future is entirely

dependent on the good graces of Republican in Washington, either as a

lobbyist with access to Republicans or with any future government position. 

 

Tim Morrison seemed to be looking for ways to keep his options open in

future Republican employment in his testimony today when he tried to be as

generous as possible to the president saying things like, I am pleased our

process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release

of the security sector assistance for Ukraine. 

 

But the process Tim Morrison actually described was consistent with the

completely corrupted process that included Rudy Giuliani and was described

in testimony already by Ambassador William Taylor and Lieutenant Colonel

Alexander Vindman. 

 

In his testimony today, Tim Morrison described that process in these terms. 

Ambassador Sondland and President Trump`s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani,

were trying to get President Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations

into Burisma.  At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the

investigation entailed. 

 

After the meeting with Dr. Hill, I Googled Burisma and learned it was a

Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was on its board.  I also

did not understand why Ambassador Sondland would be involved in Ukraine

policy, often without the involvement of our duly appointed chief of

mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.

 

In his opening statement, this is what Tim Morrison said about Donald

Trump`s phone call with the president of Ukraine.  I listen today the call

as it occurred in the Situation Room.  To the best of my recollection, the

MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. 

 

I also recall that I did not see anyone from NSC legal advisers in the room

during the call.  After the call, I promptly ask the NSC legal adviser and

his deputy to review it.  I had three concerns about a potential leak of

the MemCon. 

 

First, how it would play out in Washington`s polarized environment. 

Second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support of our Ukrainian

partners currently experienced in Congress.  And third, how it would affect

the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship.  I want to be

clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed. 

 

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman also discussed his concerns after the

president`s phone call.  “The Washington Post” is reporting this dramatic

account of Colonel Vindman`s closed door testimony on Tuesday.  After the

call, Vindman hurried to John Eisenberg`s door bringing with him his twin

brother, Yevgeny, an ethics attorney on the National Security Council. 

Michael Ellis, a deputy legal advisor to the National Security Council,

also joined the discussion, the person said. 

 

Vindman read out loud notes he took on the president`s call.  Eisenberg

then suggested the National Security Council move records of the call to a

second highly classified computer system.  Vindman told lawmakers, former

Trump national security officials said it was unheard of to store

presidential calls with foreign leaders on that system but that Eisenberg

had moved at least one other transcript of a Trump phone call there. 

 

Leading off our discussion tonight are Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin

of Maryland.  He`s a member of the House Oversight Committee and the House

Judiciary Committee.  He attended part of Tim Morrison`s deposition today. 

 

Also joining us, Tess Bridgeman, former special assistant to the president,

deputy legal advisor to the National Security Council and associate White

House counsel in the Obama administration, and Ron Klain, former senior

aide to Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama and former chief

counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Ron Klain is an advisor now on

Joe Biden`s presidential campaign. 

 

Congressman Raskin, let me start with you.  The president in this interview

tonight with the “Washington Examiner” is calling Tim Morrison`s testimony

fantastic.  He doesn`t seem to understand that Tim Morrison has basically

corroborated the worst evidence against the president, which of course is

what he said to the president of Ukraine in that phone call. 

 

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD):  Right.  Look, he was called today as a fact

witness.  And, you know, I can`t go into the details of what I saw.  But if

everything that you`re quoting is true, then he indeed was a corroborating

fact witness in this case.  He was not called for his legal opinions about

anything, and he`s not even a lawyer. 

 

So what he thought about the president`s conduct is neither here nor there

from a legal or constitutional perspective.  But what he was able to verify

from a factual perspective is definitely very important to us.  And the

critical point here is we`ve now had around a dozen witnesses all of whom

are telling us the same story. 

 

The president staged a shakedown operation against the Ukrainian government

in order to obtain this political information that he wanted about the

Bidens and Burisma.  And in order to verify a false story about the 2016

campaign, essentially replacing what we know about the systematic and

sweeping effort by Russia to subvert our campaign with a false story about

Ukraine.  Everything`s lined up there. 

 

So, ultimately, I believe we`re going to find that the Republicans are

going to make an argument that we`re starting here now, which is that that

none of this happened.  They`re going to quietly concede that.  They`re

just going to say it doesn`t quite rise to the level of an impeachable

offense.  And I think that`s going to be their last ditch argument. 

 

O`DONNELL:  What can you tell us, Congressman, what it was like today to be

on the house floor for the kind of vote that no member of Congress ever

expects to cast? 

 

RASKIN:  Well, it was somber.  And a lot of my colleagues who oftentimes

speak with a lot of rhetorical flourish or humor were very subdued.  And I

spoke also, and I found myself in a very solemn and serious mode.  We are

acting in a certain sense vindicating the values of the founders of the

Constitution looking backwards.  But also looking forwards we`re acting in

the service of future generations. 

 

So it was a pretty heavy thing, I`ve got to tell you.  At the same time I

think it felt honorable that we were standing strong for our Constitution. 

We were disappointed that the Republican decided to, you know, lock arms

and say they didn`t want to be part of an investigation when we were giving

them precisely what they`ve been asking for the last several weeks, which

is open hearings and the ability for the committee to release the

depositions and so on. 

 

And it`s obvious that they haven`t figured out what to say about the fact

that the basic gravamen of the complaint seems to be proven more every

single day, so instead they rail about the process.  And I think that act

is beginning to wear on people.  It looks pretty thin. 

 

And, you know, there are a couple of times over the last week or two where

they`ve turned the people`s house into animal house with their various

antics and provocations.  And I don`t think it`s a very good look for our

colleagues across the aisle. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Tess Bridgeman, your old job in the White House is right in the

center of the drama on the day the president has this phone call with the

president of Ukraine because immediately afterwards, that`s apparently

where everyone is running over to the National Security Council, the

lawyer`s office and the deputy, you being the deputy.  And the deputy`s

present in these scenes. 

 

Colonel Vindman goes over there.  We hear Morrison goes over there.  I

don`t know if they`re bumping into each other as they go in and out of that

room.  But what do you make of Morrison`s account today of rushing over to

the council`s office?  What I found out about is what he – the reasons he

then says he was concerned about the phone call have nothing to do with the

counsel`s office. 

 

TESS BRIDGEMAN, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL FORMER DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR: 

That`s right, Lawrence.  There is something that`s quite odd about his

account of why he went to speak with the NSC legal advisor and his deputy. 

He mentions being concerned about leaks, being concerned about

partisanship, being concerned about Ukraine policy, more broadly.  These

are the kinds of things you might go to the communications office for, that

you might go and talk with the secretary if you`re concerned about where

the document is being handled within the White House complex. 

 

I think what`s very telling is that everyone else who`s provided an account

of rushing into that office has said they did so because they were deeply

concerned about what they say as grave misconduct.  They knew that it is

wrong for the president to use his office to try to shakedown a foreign

leader to do political favors for him.  And they were deeply invested in

carrying out the bipartisan Ukraine policy that is, you know, core to why

there is such a while national cost to the president`s personal

aggrandizement here.  They knew that this was standing in the way of U.S.

support for Ukraine being able to defend itself against Russia for the core

principle that you don`t take orders by force. 

 

So I think Morrison`s account that he went to the council office for these

other peripheral reasons that don`t sound in misconduct or legality really

don`t ring true or there`s something more to what he was expecting the

legal office to do with that information. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Ron Klain, it reads to me like Tim Morrison is trying to

preserve his life in employment in Washington after this, and it worked. 

He`s got Donald Trump tonight saying his testimony was fantastic because he

put in some sentences there to Donald Trump sound positive. 

 

But in the substance, it is all equally condemning as colonel Vindman`s was

even the point of saying the rough transcript that the White House put out

of the phone call is accurate in substance – accurate in substance means

there could be missing pieces of it but in substance it is accurate.  And

so, there`s actually no contradictions here that we can find in the public

testimony so far between Tim Morrison and Colonel Vindman. 

 

RON KLAIN, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VP BIDEN:  That`s right, Lawrence.  I

mean, it`s stunning, as Congressman Raskin alluded to earlier, you had all

these witnesses come before the intelligence community and essentially 8 to

12 of them basically confirmed the same story.  That`s more than the number

of trick or treaters I had at my house tonight.  It`s a stunning line-up of

witnesses all confirming the same story. 

 

And, look, as to Mr. Morrison`s statement today that he wasn`t concerned

about illegality, I think it`s part your explanation he wanted to preserve

his viability in Washington but also trying to avoid pleading guilty to a

crime.  If he had known, if he believed it was illegal, the effort to hide

this document would be an active obstruction of justice.  And I don`t think

Mr. Morrison was willing to plead guilty to obstruction today in the House

Intelligence Committee. 

 

So, he told the truth, he told basically the story everyone tells so far is

true, the story the transcript confirms is true.  Donald Trump shook down a

foreign government for political assistance.  He betrayed his oath of

office and betrayed our national security interests.  And the evidence of

that is just overwhelming now. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Jamie Raskin, Tess Bridgeman, Ron Klain, thank you

all for starting off our discussion tonight.  We really appreciate that. 

 

And when we come back, two witnesses that Democrats want to question in the

impeachment investigation were in federal court today trying to get those

subpoenas blocked or clarifications on whether those subpoenas will be

blocked.  Neal Katyal will answer all of their legal questions for them for

free.  That`s next. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  It was subpoena day in federal court in Washington, D.C., in

fact in two different federal courtrooms.  Two different witnesses fighting

subpoenas from the House of Representatives. 

 

Joining us now Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, who has

argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court.  He`s an MSNBC legal

contributor and co-author of an upcoming new book “Impeach: The Case

Against Donald Trump”.

 

Neal, thank you very much for joining us tonight. 

 

Let`s start with the Don McGahn subpoena.  Let`s consider what happened in

that case because the judge really had a struggle trying to understand why

Don McGahn should not be forced to comply with a House subpoena. 

 

NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR:  Yes, so you had two things going on

really today, two different witnesses.  But I think the most important

thing, Lawrence, to start your discussion is that`s all gravy.  From the

House impeachment standpoint the evidence against Trump as you`ve been

discussing for the first ten minutes is overwhelming.  It`s Trump`s own

words. 

 

So, you know, these witnesses are nice and McGahn and Kupperman will be

helpful to the house`s case but they`re not necessary at all.  So what

Trump is trying to do here is delay them from testifying as much as he can. 

And the argument he made before Judge Jackson today, his lawyer and the

Justice Department lawyers was pretty much, you know, poppycock. 

Basically, you know, he came in and said the house can`t file a lawsuit at

all to get this information.  Judge Jackson said asking the Justice

Department Trump lawyer, what, you`re saying the House can never go to

court?  Answer by the justice department lawyer, yes. 

 

That flies on the face of decades of precedent by the court and is just

going nowhere.  So this is bad lawyering, a bad legal argument.  And

ultimately, you know, I think it`s all Trump`s got at this point but it`s

not looking to good. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Neal, it`s a bad legal argument, but those are the corners –

the corners they`re getting painted into in court are corners they`ve

painted for themselves.  There was no other answer, right?  I mean, given

the logic of what they were arguing there was no other answer other than,

no, the House can never go to court. 

 

KATYAL:  Well, I think responsible lawyering would have been to try and

say, look, you know, some of the things this guy, the former White House

lawyer Don McGahn might testify to might be sensitive involving executive

privilege or something like that to be narrow.  But what they`ve done is

throw down the gauntlet is say, no, nothing, you can`t do anything, you

can`t testify at all, you can`t do anything, I`m the president, I`m the

king. 

 

And, you know, that`s what we fought the revolution about.  And that`s why

these arguments have been spectacularly unsuccessful.  Judge Jackson is a

widely respected judge and I think in the course of hours today really

decimated the government`s argument. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Well, let`s go to other case which is procedurally much

stranger, because it`s a lawsuit, the likes of which I`m not sure we`ve

ever seen.  This is Charles Kupperman.  He was asking – John Bolton was

his boss in the White House, and he`s asking the court through a lawsuit to

answer to him should he comply with a house subpoena or even now that he`s

a private citizen should he follow Donald Trump`s request, which is all

that it is, a request he not testify to the House. 

 

The assumption being that John Bolton will be added to this case because

he`s represented by the same lawyer if John Bolton gets the subpoena. 

 

KATYAL:  Yes, Lawrence, I think the best way for your viewers to understand

this lawsuit is it`s not really a lawsuit, it`s a delaying tactic.  What

Kupperman is doing is coming in and trying to buy time so he doesn`t have

to answer the subpoena and testify in Congress.  You know, I don`t know

what his motivations are, but that`s the effect of what he`s doing. 

 

And he`s gotten the support from the Trump administration for that.  So

much so that the Trump administration when the judge here, Judge Leon,

who`s a widely respected judge as well in D.C., Judge Leon set the argument

for December, and the lawyer for the Trump administration said, no, that`s

going to interfere with Thanksgiving, can you please make it even longer. 

And what Judge Leon said was, quote, when it`s a matter of importance to

the country, you roll your sleeves up and you get the job done. 

 

This is about delay and it`s about trying to run out the clock on

impeachment.  And the problem with that is two fold.  Number one, the

evidence against Trump is so overwhelming.  And number two, it looks more

and more Nixonian.  It looks more and more like obstruction of justice

which after all was a separate article in the Nixon impeachment. 

 

O`DONNELL:  Neal Katyal, thank you very much for joining us tonight.  We

really appreciate it. 

 

KATYAL:  Thank you.

 

O`DONNELL:  And when we come back, Republican presidential candidate Bill

Weld will react to today`s impeachment vote where not a single Republican,

not one Republican voted for it.  And that is first, because previous

impeachment resolutions have been bipartisan votes. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL:  Republicans in Congress have been complaining about the closed

door depositions being conducted in the impeachment inquiry, even though 48

Republican house members are invited to every one of those depositions. 

But today when Republicans were given a chance to vote on a resolution that

established the rules of the road for public hearings, every Republican

voted against public hearings in the investigation of the president. 

 

We have never seen a purely partisan vote on a resolution authorizing an

impeachment inquiry.  In 1974, it was almost completely bipartisan in the

House of Representatives when a resolution authorizing the impeachment

investigation of President Richard Nixon passed almost unanimously in the

house 410-4.  In 1998, 31 Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a

resolution authorizing the impeachment investigation of President Bill

Clinton, 258-176. 

 

Our next guest was there, working in the House of Representatives in 1974

as a Republican staff member in the House of Representatives, working on

the impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon right alongside

another young House staffer named Hillary Rodham, who married Bill Clinton

the next year after the Nixon impeachment investigation.

 

Joining us now is former Massachusetts Republican Governor Bill Weld.

During Watergate, he was on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee. He

is now run for the Republican Presidential nomination against Donald Trump.

 

Governor Weld, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

 

BILL WELD (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Lawrence.

 

O`DONNELL: What was your reaction today to see not a single Republican vote

in the House of Representatives for this resolution for public hearings.

 

WELD: Well it`s quite a contrast to 1974 and the Nixon impeachment

proceedings. First of all, the vote to authorize it was overwhelming as you

point out, only four dissenting votes in the entire House of

Representatives.

 

But beyond that, both John Doar and Albert Jenner, the respective Chief

Counsel and Republican Chief Counsel of that Committee were quite clear

they wanted to run a unified staff so much so that Miss Rodham and myself

found ourselves in the same office. We were both members of the

Constitution on legal staff.

 

I think we shared that office with a woman from Arkansas, Terry

Kirkpatrick. We consulted frequently with John Labovitz, who is another

member of the Democratic staff. There were other Republican lawyers who

contributed to the memorandum defining what`s impeachable conduct by a

President.

 

And the whole thing was right out in the open with Democrats and

Republicans who didn`t always agree on everything, but they certainly were

discussing everything back and forth. And at the end of the day, I think

there were seven Republican votes to proceed to the Senate and ten against.

That`s until the tapes came out. And when the tapes came out, it was all

over in one day.

 

O`DONNELL: I want to read to you from The Washington Examiner tonight some

breaking news. The President gave an interview to The Washington Examiner

tonight outlining I guess what you could call his strategy, including

getting t-shirts printed with the slogan Read The Transcript.

 

He says - he also says this in The Washington Examiner. At some point, I`m

going to sit down perhaps as a fireside chat on live television and I will

read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you

read it, it`s a straight call.

 

If you were defending the President, would you advise him to do that?

 

WELD: No, I certainly wouldn`t, because when you read it, it`s an

impeachable and removable offense. The President says, look we do a lot for

you. PS, I just withheld $400 million in aid that you need to fight those

Russian tanks on your Eastern Front in your hot war. And you know, we could

do a lot more for you.

 

And then he says, I need a favor though. That word though is a killer. It

implies that all this good stuff is not going to happen unless he gets the

favor, which is digging up dirt on Hunter Biden.

 

There were two things that the founders were most worried about when they

were drafting the impeachment clause. Number one was foreign interference

in our affairs and number two was corruption of the office, which is use of

the office to promote the personal gain.

 

In those days, bribery of a monarch was not at all uncommon and that`s

precisely what the founders were worried about. Those two things, and

they`re there in spades in the very transcript that President Trump you say

wants everyone to read.

 

O`DONNELL: The President we`ve heard - we`ve read on the phone with the

President of Ukraine desperately worried about Joe Biden to the point where

he`s willing to engage in what many are calling criminal conduct on that

phone call. He also apparently is very, very afraid of Bill Weld and he`s

taking every step possible to simply stop Republican primaries in states.

 

The breaking news tonight on Minnesota is that Minnesota is now tonight I

think pulling back from having any kind of Republican Presidential primary.

What does that do to your campaign, if Donald Trump is so afraid of you

getting any votes that he`s trying to just eliminate primaries?

 

WELD: Well it is amazing, Lawrence. They actually tried earlier in the year

to eliminate the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire. Needless to

say, and the Republican State Committee, which is appointed by Trump in

every state, it`s the Trump Organization, said yes let`s get rid of this

first-in-the-nation primary.

 

Well the voters in New Hampshire are not stupid and they know that a lot of

their clout comes from having the first-in-the-nation primary every four

years. So that went over like a lead balloon. But that was such an extreme

gambit. That`s a motion that failed for one of a second.

 

My read is that they know that the President, how shall I put this, does

not have a solid knowledge base about any of the issues that would have to

be aired in a fully contested primary, and so they don`t want there to be a

primary or an election, and the president has said the same thing. And he

jokes about his third term and his fifth term, and wasn`t it great what Xi

Jinping did in China, how he doesn`t have to have elections anymore. So

this is what the President really thinks.

 

O`DONNELL: Republican Presidential candidate Bill Weld, thank you very much

for joining us tonight, really appreciate it.

 

WELD: Thank you Lawrence.

 

O`DONNELL: And when we come back, the impeachment inquiry will be

televised. The question is, when. That`s next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL: Congresswoman Katie Hill has become the victim of a bitter

divorce proceeding with her husband, who she says publicly released naked

pictures of her and accused her of having inappropriate relationship with a

Congressional staff member, which she denies and with a campaign staff

member.

 

As a candidate, Katie Hill publicly revealed she is bisexual, so sexual

exclusivity was understood by her voters to not necessarily be part of the

framework of her marriage. But Katie Hill decided that the distraction had

become too much for her to effectively continue her work in the House of

Representatives.

 

And today, she said this after casting her final vote as a freshman member

of the House.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

KATIE HILL, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Yet a man who brags about his

sexual predation, who`s had dozens of women come forward to accuse him of

sexual assault, who pushes policies that are uniquely harmful to women and

who has filled the courts with judges who proudly rule to deprive women of

the most fundamental rights to control their own bodies sits in the highest

office of the land.

 

And so today, as my last vote, I voted on impeachment proceedings, not just

because of corruption, obstruction of justice, or gross misconduct, but

because of the deepest abuse of power, including the abuse of power over

women.

 

Today, as my final act, I voted to move forward with the impeachment of

Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL: The impeachment will be televised. And after this break, Joyce

Manson and Ron Klain will bring their considerable experience to our

discussion about what we will see in the televised impeachment proceedings

against Donald John Trump in the House of Representatives. That`s next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I`ve answered it once, I answered it twice. I`m

going to answer it one time, these rules are fair than anything that have

gone before in terms of an impeachment proceeding.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL: Here`s how Jim McGovern, the Chairman of the House Rules

Committee, explained the impeachment inquiry rules today.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D-MA): This resolution provides better protections for

the President than what President Nixon and Clinton received. And just like

under Nixon and Clinton, and the Judiciary Committee, the President`s

Counsel can submit additional testimony or evidence for the Committee to

consider.

 

The President and his counsel can attend all hearings and raise objections.

They can question any witness.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Joyce Vance former US Attorney for the Northern

District of Alabama and MSNBC legal analyst, and Ron Klain is back with us.

Joyce, what`s your reading of the rules of these public hearings?

 

JOYCE VANCE FORMER US ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA AND

MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, they are very fair, Lawrence. This is a set of

rules that gives the President and his lawyers a lot of visibility into the

investigative part of these proceedings.

 

As you pointed out earlier, the House finds itself in the unusual position

of not having had a Special Counsel, not having had investigators to

assemble an investigation, so they`re having to do that themselves. And

typically in these proceedings, targets or subjects of an investigation

don`t get to see what`s going on.

 

Here the President will. I expect we will still hear more complaints from

the Republicans about process though.

 

O`DONNELL: Yet Ron Klain, if I had let the tape keep running, Jim McGovern

eventually says after he`s outlined every other detail about these rules,

of course there isn`t any version of the rules that the Republicans

wouldn`t complain about.

 

RON KLAIN, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: There`s no

question about that Lawrence. They said 40 billion words about the process

here, four words they can`t say is Trump didn`t do it. So they`re going to

continue to gripe and complain about the process.

 

When the hearings were private, they wanted them public. Now that they`ll

be public, they want them private. They`ll want witnesses deposed, not

deposed, whatever. It`s just going to go back and forth. And they have no

defense of what the President did. He had basically admitted to it on

television, so they`re going to complain and complain about the process.

 

O`DONNELL: The rules provide for staff attorneys to ask questions for in

periods of 45 minutes so they`ll have long blocks where they can do

uninterrupted questioning. We saw a version of that in the House Judiciary

Committee, when Barry Berke questioned Corey Lewandowski. Let`s take a look

at that.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BARRY BERKE, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MAJORITY COUNSEL: Did you lie, sir,

in television interviews denying that you`ve been asked to give answers to

the Special Counsel.

 

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I don`t believe so.

 

BERKE: So you deny that you ever lied in public statements about whether

you were–

 

LEWANDOWSKI: What I`m saying is, when under oath, I`ve always told the

truth, whether it`s before Special Counsel, whether it was before the House

Judiciary Committee, whether it was before the House Intelligence Committee

on two separate occasions, or before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Every time I`ve raised my right hand to God, I`ve sworn and told the truth.

 

BERKE: That`s not my question to you, sir, we`ll get to that. My question

to you sir is on national television, did you lie about your relationship

with the Special Counsel and whether they sought your interview?

 

LEWANDOWSKI: I don`t know.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL: Joyce Vance, it was the thing to behold and unfortunately it

came after about ten hours of very inept questioning by members of the

Committee. It seems like they`ve learned their lesson.

 

VANCE: I think they have learned their lesson. And the important takeaway

here is that this is not a happy moment in our country, this is a sad

event, a serious event. We need to get to the truth. That`s not a political

statement, neither party owns the truth, but the country needs to

understand what happened so we can move forward.

 

And the best way to do that is to have traditional questioning to have

someone who will help to complete the narrative and have witnesses tell

their stories about what happened. Now we`ll finally get that.

 

O`DONNELL: Ron Klain, having worked on the Committee yourself, Senate

Judiciary Committee, is it a struggle with members in situations like this

because they all have their moment in front of the microphone and the

constituents can see them back home in the big moment to get them to give

up that time. They will all still have a chance, but none of them are going

to be better than the staff counsel on the Committee.

 

KLAIN: I think that`s right, Lawrence, and look I think many of these

people are skilled questioners and talented attorneys. But having a

professional have a concerted period of time, 45 minutes, to really walk

through the narrative step by step, as Joyce said, is going to create a

powerful moment.

 

When you see these witnesses, we didn`t see this in the Clinton

impeachment, we`re going to see fact witnesses like Lieutenant Colonel

Vindman, like Ambassador Taylor, come before the Committee, be expertly

questioned, tell their story and then have those clips everywhere on the

Internet, on social media. This is going to be a really new experience and

I think a very powerful experience for the country.

 

O`DONNELL: And Joyce, to be clear, the Republican minority on the Committee

has exactly the same right, their counsel can ask questions for 45 minutes

uninterrupted. But it seems like Republican members of the Committee might

have a larger interest in getting their 5 minutes, especially if they`re

still doing nothing but stunts for the camera.

 

VANCE: So far we haven`t heard any sort of substantive rebuttal from

Republicans to the allegations that are emerging about the President`s

conduct in Ukraine, and that`s a real problem for them. What do they do

with their 45 minutes? If they can`t attack the witnesses on substance, all

they`re left with is posturing during their five-minute rejoinder. So they

will be in a tough position, but it`s one of their own making.

 

O`DONNELL: And Ron, the President`s lawyers will also have the right to

question witnesses.

 

KLAIN: They will and - but as Joyce said, I mean if your defense isn`t he

didn`t do it, I`m not really sure what questions they`re going to ask. They

will try some of the smears like were made perhaps against Lieutenant

Colonel Vindman the other night on Fox. They may try to just assail the

process altogether.

 

But my guess is they`ll just make a bunch of speeches appealing to Trump,

appealing to Trump`s voters, appealing of Trump`s base, I think it`ll be a

very fact-finding exercise on one side and a very political exercise on the

other side.

 

O`DONNELL: Ron Klain, Joyce Vance, thank you both for joining our

discussion. Really appreciate it.

 

KLAIN: Thanks Lawrence, thank you.

 

O`DONNELL: Well, Ezra Klein will get tonight`s Last Word on this historic

day as the impeachment of Donald Trump is finally underway.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

O`DONNELL: This morning at 8:08 am on Fox and Friends, Kellyanne Conway

shared a dirty little secret about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats

impeachment resolution.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Guess what, dirty little

secret, they don`t have the votes.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

O`DONNELL: And three hours later, Kellyanne Conway`s little secret was once

again revealed, which is that she doesn`t know anything about anything. And

so, under Nancy Pelosi`s leadership tonight, the Democrats are finally

formally engaged in the impeachment process against Donald Trump and

unified in that process.

 

Joining us now is Ezra Klein, Editor-at-Large at VOX and host of the new

podcast Impeachment Explained. And Ezra, it`s our two year anniversary as

two years ago that we first - just you and I first discussed this subject

together here on this program after you`d written a long and thoughtful

piece about impeachment and how it fits both in our psyche and our

politics. We are finally here. Your reaction to what happened in the House

today.

 

EZRA KLEIN, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, VOX: Well first, I was so concerned you would

forget our anniversary, so thank you, it means a lot to me.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

I thought two things about today. So first thing I thought is that the

implicit theory of Presidential accountability being put forward by the

Republicans, which is it there should be none under any circumstances, when

a Republican is in office is actually pretty constitutionally scary.

 

What got put forward today was not impeachment but impeachment inquiry. I

think he would have to be blind to what is going on to not at least want to

look into it. And so, the fact that Republicans given an opportunity to

vote for a public hearing process, where they would get their lead on the

relevant Committee, we get 45 minutes to question witnesses, it`s I think

pretty scary and I think it forever shreds the idea that any of these

people are constitutional conservatives.

 

And the other thing is that, to what you just had from Kellyanne Conway,

the worst bet to ever make in Washington is that Nancy Pelosi has not

counted the votes.

 

O`DONNELL: Yes, it`s the - there`s nothing clearer than that. And it`s one

of those great little moments because it just shows that the entire

Kellyanne Conway is just an act, the whole thing is just this invention

there`s nothing in it ever. What do you expect to see as we go forward, we

have not heard any substantive defense of the President? The President is

tonight telling The Washington Examiner that his entire defense is what the

prosecution thinks is the entire prosecution, which is the rough transcript

of the call.

 

President Trump`s saying he wants to have a fireside chat on TV where he

reads the transcript of his phone call with the President of Ukraine, and

that is exactly the thing that the Democrats say condemns the President.

 

KLEIN: I don`t know, man.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

What do you want me to say to that? The thing that is the scariest piece of

all this to me is not that Trump did it, it`s somewhere in there, I think

it is actually plausible that Trump believes he did nothing wrong, that he

believes that he is so conflated his own interests without of the country

that he believes it would have been perfectly fine, in fact it would have

been the right thing for him to do as President to try to use the power of

his office to extort another country into investigating a domestic

political rival, because he saw a conspiracy theory on Fox and Friends, or

whatever it was that he initially saw.

 

And I think it`s actually a real problem. It`s one thing to have cynical

players in the White House who are in a Machiavellian way knowingly

betraying the country and their own interest. That`s bad. In some ways,

it`s almost worst to have the bull in the china shop that doesn`t even

realize what they`re doing is wrong.

 

That`s genuinely dangerous, because in this as in so many things going back

to the piece that you and I talked about years ago now, one of the other

problems here lurking behind all this is Donald Trump is not fit for the

job that he holds and that sometimes comes out through corruption,

sometimes comes out through incompetence, and sometimes comes out through

recklessness and bad judgment, like the setting that maybe he`ll read this

call record at a fireside chat because you think it`s perfect when it`s

actually the thing that has launched an impeachment proceeding against you.

 

And that is among the many, many things here that are scary about Donald

Trump. That`s another one.

 

O`DONNELL: Yes, and at the time when you were right two years ago, the

worry that we all had was that Donald Trump could find himself in a nuclear

exchange with North Korea at that point. Things were going so badly and his

behavior was publicly so erratic about that.

 

And one of the things you argued for was just relaxing a little bit about

impeachment, everyone in public office when they talk about it, I think

it`s mandatory for them I guess to say that it`s very sad and it`s very sad

that it has come to this.

 

And no one thinks it`s going to be very sad, if you have to get rid of the

CEO of Boeing because their planes crash. They think it`s what you do. And

you were making an argument that we should look at this a little bit more

the way corporate America looks at changing CEOs, when they have to.

 

KLEIN: Or the way the founders looked at it, James Madison said the

President should be impeached for removing meritorious officers wontedly.

It was talked about often at the beginning of the country that impeachment

was a way to deal with an out-of-control executive.

 

It was not considered an unbelievable scar the country would never recover

from. And as you say, with the Boeing example, the idea that the most

powerful person in the country would be the one with the most job security,

that there`d be nothing to do in between elections, if they were out of

control is wild and it`s all the more wild given that the only reason

Donald Trump sits in that chair at all is it for years and years and years,

he appeared on our television screens firing people for apparently not

doing a good job in dumb games.

 

We should be able to fire somebody for doing a terrible job and abusing

power and putting the country`s leverage at risk in order to further their

own political prospects.

 

O`DONNELL: It could not be more appropriate that Ezra Klein gets tonight`s

Last Word. Ezra, thank you very much for joining us, I really appreciate

it.

 

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

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.>