Judge orders Don McGahn to testify. TRANSCRIPT: 11/25/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell.

Ron Klain, Zoe Lofgren

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST:  Thank you, my friend.  You have a great night. 


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST  Will do.  Thank you.


VELSHI:  All right.  I`m in for Lawrence O`Donnell tonight. 


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said his committee, as

Rachel said, preparing to turnover its report on the impeachment

investigation evidence to the House Judiciary Committee soon after

Thanksgiving.  Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren who sits on the

Judiciary Committee will join me shortly.


And billionaire Michael Bloomberg has officially entered the race for the

Democratic nomination for 2020 but his fundraising strategy is ruffling

feathers among other Democratic candidates.  Will Bloomberg`s presence

shake up the Democratic race?  Charlie Cook is here later with some strong

thoughts on that.


But we begin tonight with breaking news.  A federal judge issues a stinging

rebuke to the Trump administration`s stonewalling of Congress that could

have ripple effects for other potential impeachment witnesses.  Tonight,

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that former White House counsel, this

man, Don McGahn, must testify in compliance with the congressional



In her ruling, Judge Jackson rejected the Justice Department`s claim of

unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity, calling it, quote, baseless. 

Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory

congressional process even if the president expressly directs such

officials` non-compliance.  This conclusion is inescapable precisely

because compulsory appearance by dent of a subpoena is a legal construct,

not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law, end



Judge Jackson made clear McGahn could invoke executive privilege during his

testimony when appropriate.  But she declared the presidents cannot

unilaterally block judges from testifying, adding, quote, stated simply,

the primary take away from the past 250 years of recorded American history

is that presidents are not kings. 


The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, praised the

judge`s decision, saying in a statement, quote, Don McGahn is a central

witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed special counsel

Mueller`s investigation and the administration`s claim that officials can

claim absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas has no basis in law,

as the court recognize today.  Now that the court has ruled, I expect him

to follow his legal obligations, and promptly appear before the committee.


It`s not clear how promptly that might be.  The Department of Justice

announced its plans to quickly appeal the ruling and said it will stay –

seek a stay to block its enforcement.  McGahn`s lawyer says Don McGahn will

comply with Judge Jackson`s decision unless it is stayed pending appeal. 

The DOJ is handling this case so you`ll need to ask them whether they

intend to seek a stay. 


But while this legal fight is not over, tonight`s ruling has significant

implications for other Trump administration officials who have been

instructed not to testify about Donald Trump`s scheme to pressure Ukraine

to investigate his political rival in exchange for military aid.  Those

potential witnesses include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House

Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John



Jonathan Shaub, a former attorney in the Justice Department`s Office of

Legal Counsel told “The Washington Post” that this ruling could, quote,

provide cover for other witnesses, especially former employees who are

inclined to testify but feel compelled by the White House`s direction not

to.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the Democrats

are moving forward with the impeachment inquiry while leaving the door open

for more witnesses to come forward. 


Tonight, Chairman Schiff had this message to others refusing to testify. 

Quote, to all those witnesses who hide behind fallacious claims of absolute

immunity, this ruling shows again how meritless their position remains. 

The witnesses who have defied Congress at the behest of the president will

have to decide whether their duty is to the country or to a president who

believes that he is above the law. 


Leading off our discussion tonight, Mieke Eoyang, former staff member for

the House Intelligence Committee and an MSNBC contributor.  She`s currently

vice president of the national security program at Third Way.  Glenn

Kirschner is a former federal prosecutor who`s worked with special counsel

Robert Mueller and an MSNBC legal analyst.  And Ron Klain, former chief

counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and senior aide to Vice President

Joe Biden and president Obama.  He`s an advisor to Joe Biden`s 2020

presidential campaign. 


Ron, I`m going to start with you, as somebody who spent a lot of time in

the White House.  This was something that the White House had been able to

hang on to for sometime, that Don McGahn who is central to so many things

that Donald Trump was involved in was able to avoid testifying to Congress. 

There were a lot of people looking for this judgment tonight to understand

what was going to happen to Don McGahn. 


I imagine the White House is very uneasy this evening. 



they are.  Look, it is several more steps before we get the truth out of

Don McGahn, the Justice Department, as you reported, Ali, is going to

appeal and seek a stay and even if McGahn, you know, that stay is denied

and he`s forced to come before Congress, he can still assert executive

privilege.  He can assert the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. 


So, it`s not clear if this is going to produce really truth telling yet,

but what it does do is sends a powerful signal that the president can`t

just tell people not to come.  The president can`t just say, hey, we`re not

cooperating at all and it really puts a powerful piece of leverage behind

the House committees, the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee

to get the ball rolling of high-profile witnesses who they have been

absolutely barred from talking to so far. 


VELSHI:  Glenn, let me ask you about – I want this particular part of the

judge`s opinion, I want to read to you.  When the DOJ insists that

presidents can lawfully prevent their senior level aides from responding to

compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor

Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ promotes a conception

of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands

exactly backwards. 


Accordingly, DOJ`s conceptual claim to unreviewable absolute testimonial

immunity on separation of power`s grounds essentially that the

constitutional scheme countenances unassailable executive branch authority

is baseless and as such, cannot be sustained. 


Glenn, the only sentence I understand there is baseless and as such cannot

be sustained.  Tell us what the rest of that means. 


GLENN KRISCHNER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  So, I`ll tell you.  Judge Ketanji

Brown Jackson got it exactly right and it is a very forceful opinion.  It`s

also a lengthy opinion, 120 pages long.  One of the other sentences, Ali,

that really caught my attention is when Judge Jackson said and I quote, Mr.

McGahn`s failure to appear was without legal justification.


And let me take that one step further.  Donald Trump`s ordering Mr. McGahn

not to appear was without legal justification.  That is darn near being

able to say it was illegal.  I don`t want to mince words but – so I think

this is really going to give the House some additional fuel for adding

obstruction of justice as an article of impeachment because the president

has never had a lawful basis to order all of these people not to appear,

whether it`s McGahn or Pompeo or Mulvaney or Hicks.


So, hopefully, we will now begin to see these people testify and provide

some accurate information of what was going on behind the curtain. 


VELSHI:  And, of course, Mika, we`re reaching out to those people, Pompeo

and Mulvaney and Bolton.  Mulvaney`s lawyer has said this ruling does not

affect whether he`ll testify. 


This is Robert Driscoll, he`s the attorney acting for White House Chief of

Staff Mick Mulvaney.  He says: Mick will continue to follow the instruction

of the president based on a DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion with

respect to the House subpoena. 


So, anybody hoping that everybody whose been resisting these congressional

subpoenas will suddenly cave as a result of tonight`s ruling is going to

have to wait a little longer. 


EOYANG:  Yes, that`s right.  This opinion is mid-stream, usually when you

have a district court ruling, the losing party will run immediately to the

appellate court and everything is going to be on pause until the appellate

court rules.  But to come back to your initial question about what this

means and the constitutional structure, what Jackson is saying here is that

Congress is the branch that constitutionally is designated to do oversight

of the executive branch. 


So for the executive branch to say it`s people don`t have to show up in

response to a congressional attempts to conduct oversight, that actually

subverts the entire structure of the Constitution that the Department of

Justice is arguing this goes against the founding of our country but also

it goes against pass precedent, as she cites the example of Harriet Miers,

the Bush administration White House counsel who was also ordered to

testify, who`d also made a similarly broad claim that she was absolutely

immune and that was also rejected. 


VELSHI:  Ron, what do you think the White House`s strategy is going to be

in the face of Adam Schiff saying they basically conducted and finished –

you know, got the information they need for the report that`s going to go

over to the Judiciary Committee?  Momentarily, I`m gong to speak with

Representative Zoe Lofgren who is the second highest ranking Democrat on

the committee. 


But at this point, this thing is – the horse has left the barn.  The White

House is going to have to pull together a strategy that makes more sense

than the one they employed so far. 


KLAIN:  Yes, well, White House strategy is an oxymoron in this context of

this presidency and this administration and, you know, what we seen is

already the complete blowing up of their strategy.  Yes, they were able to

keep several of these high profile witnesses from appearing before Congress

but they were devastated by the career people, the less famous people until

last week who came before the Congress and told the truth in such a

powerful way like Fiona Hill, for example. 


And so, now, they face the risk that these higher level people are going to

be either compelled to testify or merely get the fig leaf they need to

testify.  Will John Bolton use this as an excuse to come forward and

testify?  Will other ex officials who maybe are less friendly to the

president start to testify?  So this takes what was already a five-

dimensional chess game way beyond the Trump White House`s capacity to

manage, and adds three or four additional dimensions to it. 


VELSHI:  Glenn, let me just read to you another piece of this ruling in

which the judge talks about what is missing from the Constitution.  She

writes, what is missing from the Constitution`s frame work as the framers

envisioned it is the president`s purported power to kneecap House

investigations of executive branch operations by demanding that a senior

level aid breach their legal duty to respond to compelled congressional



This judge is not holding back on her view how the president and his legal

team have interpreted congressional subpoenas that and as Mieke was talking

about, congressional oversight. 


KIRSCHNER:  Yes, there are some people who are, I think, baselessly

claiming maybe some of these judges just don`t like Trump or his policies. 

You know, I`ll tell you, I think the judiciary doesn`t like people

disobeying the law or making up laws like executive privilege to really try

to avoid proper oversight function.  So I actually think I heard you say

that Mick Mulvaney is putting out a statement that he`s still going to

refuse to compile and listen to Trump if Trump continues to say don`t



I have to tell you, that couldn`t be a more squarely unlawful act and it is

in contempt of what a federal court judge just said with respect to the

law.  So I think these people now are really putting themselves in harm`s



VELSHI:  What does this do, Mieke, to Democratic strategy right now?  Adam

Schiff has put out a statement saying the investigative work continues. 

We`re learning additional information almost every day.  But while we

continue with our investigative work and do not foreclose the possibility

of further depositions of hearings, we will not allow the president or

others to drag this out for months on end in the courts. 


He basically said, by next week, possibly as early as next week, they could

hand this over to the Judiciary Committee. 


EOYANG:  Yes, I think it`s clear what we learned over the course of Adam

Schiff`s hearings is greater detail and filling in of a story that the

president admitted to from the very beginning.  We`ve known from the start

the president brought a pressure campaign to bear against a foreign power

to force the investigation of his most feared political rival and that is

just fund mentally wrong.  So I think that Adam Schiff is feeling like it`s

so wrong, we cannot delay, you can`t allow the president or his aides to

hold the process hostage with endless appeals in courts. 


And so, what we know is the Department of Justice will try and delay this

effect of the McGahn ruling and any other ruling to prevent these witnesses

from coming forward to talk to Congress. 


VELSHI:  Thanks to the three of you getting us started, Ron Klain, Glenn

Kirschner and Mieke Eoyang.


Coming up, Chairman Adam Schiff said the intelligence committee is working

on the report on the impeachment investigation and as we discussed, it

could be delivered to the Judiciary Committee soon after Thanksgiving. 

Judiciary Committee member Zoe Lofgren joins me next.




VELSHI:  As a federal ruling puts pressure on the administration officials

to testify, House Democrats are not willing to take the next big step to

impeach President Donald Trump.  Chairman Adam Schiff says soon after

Thanksgiving, the intelligence committee will deliver a report with all of

the impeachment evidence to the Judiciary Committee, which will then draft

and vote on articles of impeachment. 


Chairman Schiff writes to his congressional colleagues, quote: We will

catalog the instances of non-compliance with lawful subpoenas as part of

our report to the Judiciary Committee, which will allow that committee to

consider whether an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress

is warranted along with an article or articles based on this underlying

conduct or other presidential misconduct. 


One of the Democrats that will decide on articles of impeachment is

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California.  She was involved in the last two

presidential impeachments.  In 1974, there she is on the right.  She was a

congressional staffer when the House Judiciary Committee prepared articles

of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. 


And then, in 1998, she was a member of Congress on the Judiciary Committee

and voted against impeaching President Bill Clinton. 


Now, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is second highest ranking Democrat on the

Judiciary Committee.  She joins me now for our second conversation today. 


Congresswoman, good to see you again.  Thank you for joining us. 


I want to get your comment on what Adam Schiff said that they on the

Intelligence Committee are looking at these refusals to be present for

congressional subpoenas that and provide testimony as possible evidence of

obstruction of justice but that is for you on the Judiciary Committee to

determine whether that makes its way into articles of impeachment.  Give me

your thoughts on that. 


REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA):  I think Adam has it exactly right.  The

Intelligence Committee has done the fact-finding.  We can`t be held up for

months at a time through frivolous appeals of very well-reasoned decisions. 

We`ve got to move forward. 


But the fact that the president has instructed people not to comply with

lawful subpoenas that and he`s done other things, not a single document has

been released as evidence only he`s hiding something but that he is

refusing to compile with the lawful requests of Congress and that`s an

obstruction matter.  That was the third article in the Richard Nixon



VELSHI:  There are lessons from the Richard Nixon impeachment that there

are a few people like you who were there then, you were there for the

impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. 


What do you see here that you`ve drawn experience from in the past? 


LOFGREN:  Well, certainly a picture of misconduct on the part of the

president has emerged over these hearings and it has everything to do with

subverting the constitutional system for his personal interest.  That

certainly was not present with Bill Clinton.  He was charged with lying

about sex, not an admirable thing but really not much to do with the



We`re not talking about President Trump lying about sex and lying about

paying off these women that he was caught with.  That has nothing to do

with the constitutional order.  What we`re talking about is activities that

really threatened the national security and the will of Congress, the

appropriations that were enacted duly to keep Russia from tramping all over



VELSHI:  Congresswoman Lofgren, one of the new lines of attack and there

are several from Republicans since this news about the quid pro quo and

Ukraine military aid for an investigation into Joe Biden came out, one of

the latest is that you all are so occupied with this that no legislation is

being under taken and nothing is being passed.  You took issue with that? 


LOFGREN:  I certainly do.  We`ve passed over 300 bills out of the House of

Representatives that are just sitting over in the Senate.  I don`t know

what Mitch McConnell is doing but he`s not doing any legislating. 


Everything from closing the loopholes on background checks for guns to the

Violence Against Women Act, we did a huge ethics reform, the biggest ethics

election reform in many decades.  We`ve done measures to reduce the cost of

prescription drugs.  Just this last week in the Judiciary Committee, we

marked up a bill to deal with the farm labor in the United States as well

as decriminalizing marijuana because half the states have legalized it and

the federal government has not followed along. 


We`re very busy, but we can walk and chew gum, I wish we could say the same

for Mr. McConnell over there in the Senate. 


VELSHI:  I – you said just this last week, that belies what some of your

colleagues from across the aisle are saying.  You`re actually getting

legislation done in the midst of all this. 


What – for those Americans and many millions of them watching the

impeachment proceedings, they got to see Devin Nunes there, the ranking

member on the Republican side.  Something very interesting emerged about

Devin Nunes.  There are allegations that he sought info for – about Joe

Biden from Ukraine.


And I want to play one of the interactions he had with a Fox Business News

host about this. 




MARIA BARTIROMO, FBN HOST:  Bottom line, were you in Vienna with Shokin? 


REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA):  Yes, so, look, Maria, I really want to answer all

of these questions and I promise you I absolutely will come back on the

show and answer these questions, but because there is criminal activity

here, we`re working with the appropriate law enforcement agency. 




VELSHI:  That`s a weird statement.  Were you in Vienna because there is

criminal activity I can`t tell you about?  This is the ranking member of

the House Intelligence Committee. 


LOFGREN:  Well, I have no idea what he`s talking about, but I don`t really

want to comment on Mr. Nunes.  I`m sure that whatever occurred will

ultimately be revealed.  What we`re focusing in on is President Trump and

whether his actions threatened our democracy, whether they threaten our

national security.  And if so, what should we do about it. 


VELSHI:  It would be strange to have a congressman who oversees some of

these hearings being involved in the actual thing that`s being



LOFGREN:  Well, yes, it would but I don`t want to jump to a conclusion

based on snippets of news reports.  We`ll wait happily for the full piece

of information to come out.  Meanwhile, we have our job to do coming up in

the house judiciary committee, which is first to receive the information

from the House Intel Committee to evaluate it against the standard in the

Constitution, which is misconduct on the part of the president that

constitutes treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 


Now what does that mean?  There is a meaning in it and back in the `70s

when I worked on the Nixon impeachment, the staff, I didn`t write it, other

staffers did, did a document explaining what is – 




LOFGREN:  – impeachment?  What do those words mean?  I got that report on

my website so if people want to early entree into the history and legal

meaning, what do the Founders think?  Go ahead and read that little report. 

It`s very revealing. 


VELSHI:  Those kinds of things used to be dry reading for nerdy folks but

now it`s the hot ticket. 


Congresswoman, great to talk to you twice today.  Thank you for joining us,

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California.


Coming up, at what point does Republican loyalty to Donald Trump become

Republican complicity in Russian disinformation to obscure it`s on going

attacks on our democracy?  We`re going to discuss that with our next guests

after this break. 




VELSHI:  Republicans and White House officials have tried to portray

President Trump`s decision to withhold $400 million in military aid to

Ukraine as standard operating procedure but emails from within the federal

budget office, the OMB show that those officials were actually scrambling

to find a justification for the decision and wondered if it was even legal. 


“The Washington Post” reports that the White House has uncovered, quote,

hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-

the-fact justification for the president`s decision to freeze the aid to

Ukraine and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three

people familiar with the records. 


One person briefed on the records told “The Washington Post” that “White

House lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some

unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the

President. It`s unclear whether the Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney,

discussions or other records pose any legal problems for Trump in the

impeachment inquiry, but some fear they could pose political problems if

revealed publicly.”


The new report adds to the pile of undisputed evidence that President Trump

pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival based in part on a

Russian conspiracy theory that Ukraine - not Russia, Ukraine attacked our

democracy during the 2016 election.


And we`re starting to learn that a growing number of Republicans are not

only embracing that outlandish notion, but they are defending it, defending

a conspiracy theory that goes against the findings of the entire American

intelligence community.


Here is Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for

hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers, their emails? Was it Russia

or Ukraine?


SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I don`t know. Nor do you. Nor do any of us. Ms.

Hill is entitled to her–


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean, let me just interrupt to say, the entire

intelligence community says it was Russia.


KENNEDY: Right. But it could also be Ukraine. I`m not saying that I know

one way or the other. I`m saying that Ms. Hill is entitled to her opinion,

but no rebuttal evidence was allowed to be offered.




VELSHI: Senator Kennedy made that wildly unfounded remark just days after

the “New York Times” reported that “American intelligence officials

informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged

in a year`s long campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for

Moscow`s own hacking of the 2016 election.” It seems someone wasn`t paying

attention during class or didn`t want to.


After the break, we`ll discuss the growing embrace of a Russian conspiracy

theory and what it means for the 2020 election with Ron Klain and David








assistance for no good reason other than help with the political campaign

made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying

to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.




VELSHI: That was William Taylor, the top U.S. official in Ukraine, during

his testimony before the impeachment inquiry.


Joining me now, David Jolly, former Republican congressman from Florida.

He`s an MSNBC Political Analyst. Back with us, Ron Klain. Gentlemen, good

to see you.


David, this is strange. There is no part of the Republican Party prior to

2015 that would knowingly be part of spreading Russian disinformation about

having hacked and provided disinformation in a U.S. election. It`s just not

something that would have happened. Lindsey Graham wouldn`t have tolerated

it. John McCain wouldn`t have tolerated it. People like you wouldn`t have

tolerated it. What has happened that the Republican Party has become

attached to a Russian conspiracy theory?



Well, I think it reveals a lot about their true motivations. And first,

let`s recognize that what they are doing right now, what Senator Kennedy

said, what Lindsey Graham is doing is it`s dangerous, it`s gravely

dangerous that through their own ignorance, negligence or malfeasance ,

they are being used by Russia.


Republican senators, Republican members of Congress tonight are being used

by Russia because they are unwilling to look at the truth. And Ali, I would

offer perspective as a former Republican, and I know my - some of my

Democratic friends may disagree with what I`m about to say. But I was on

the Hill during the `90s, during the Clinton impeachment, and I thought

Bill Clinton should be impeached because I believed in a certain law-and-

order principle that a President shouldn`t engage in perjury or obstruction

of justice, that I thought I belonged to a party that agreed with that.


I was in office during Barack Obama, and I didn`t think that he had the

executive authority to do DACA by executive order. Even Obama said, maybe I

don`t have the authority to do it. I thought I belonged to a party that

opposed that on constitutional grounds.


But in retrospect, what I`ve learned these last three years is it wasn`t a

law-and-order party, the Republican Party in the `90s. It was just a party

that hated Bill Clinton. It wasn`t a constitutional party when Barack Obama

was in office. It was just a party that hated Barack Obama.


What we`re seeing now is a party that is embracing Donald Trump because

they have a quest for power, proximity for power, and they want within

their reach the ability to self-deal. This is a party today without

conviction, and they are willing to be used by Russians.


VELSHI: Ron, regardless of where one stands on the impeachment of President

Trump, there was a lot of testimony that was valid to listen to. Bill

Taylor - Fiona Hill was a good example. She just had a lot of depth of

knowledge about the region. But there was one piece of testimony that Fiona

Hill provided that has been repeated many times and deserves repeating one

more time as it relates to this particular topic that we`re discussing.

Let`s listen to it together.





statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe

that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against

our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason Ukraine did. This is a

fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian

security services themselves.


I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that

the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary and Ukraine, not Russia,

attacked us in 2016.




VELSHI: So, Ron, I think we all get why Donald Trump wants to perpetuate

this. Right? Because he doesn`t want to deal with the fact that maybe there

was some advantage provided by Russian interference in the election to him.


But why would Senator John Kennedy, why would others who`ve been appearing

in the media in the last few days - and this is obviously an orchestrated

message - why would they go down this road? What do - what does a

Republican who gets to out-live Donald Trump gain out of perpetrating this?



AIDE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, clearly, they`re trying to create (ph) a

favor with President Trump. And this is the number-one way to get favor

with Donald Trump, which is to repeat the kind of conspiracy theories and

craziness and untruths and lies and criminality that President Trump is



Look, I can understand if the Republican senators want to sit there and go,

look, Trump is my guy, I`m just not going to vote him out of office or

Trump is my guy, I don`t think of what he did.


VELSHI: But that`s different from what`s going on.


KLAIN: That is different. Exactly, Ali. That`s my point, which is what`s

going on here is something very different, which is the affirmative

decision to spread unsure information about the geopolitical situation, the

affirmative decision to spread a Russian intelligence myth that points the

finger at Ukraine in an effort to help subvert Ukrainian sovereignty.


Look, we do know - to answer Senator Kennedy`s question, we do know who

interfered in the 2016 election. It was Russia. Not only has the entire

intelligence community found that, but Trump`s own Justice Department

prosecuted Russians for interfering with our election.


So let`s just get over the idea that we don`t know about it or this is

anything other than a Russian conspiracy theory to try to reverse the

geopolitical situation in Ukraine.


VELSHI: David Jolly, a quarter of Americans believe in conspiracy theories,

fairly serious ones, probably–


JOLLY: Sure.


VELSHI: –more than a lot of people in the western world. But it`s not the

basis for the Republican Party. Regular mainstream Republicans can`t

possibly be buying this because it`s dangerous to do so.


JOLLY: Ali, look, I`m a bit at loss for words as we keep having a

conversation nationally, the national conversation around this, because

there is a conspiracy theory that should - can be debated. Why are they

peddling it? But at the end of the day, it`s an abject moral failure on the

part of our Republican leaders. It`s an abandonment of truth, one in which

they have no self-respect or self-reflection. And I`m surprised they can

look themselves in the mirror, much less look at their constituents in the



The American people should be able to trust their elected leaders, whether

they`re from their party or not. Whether it`s a Republican or a Democrat,

we put our trust in our elected leaders. The Republican Party today through

its leadership has abandoned truth and has failed the American people and

frankly failed themselves, and one day they`ll recognize that and regret



VELSHI: David Jolly, thank you for your analysis.


Ron Klain, thanks for coming back–


JOLLY: Thank you.


VELSHI: –second time tonight.


Coming up, new details about the federal investigation into Rudy Giuliani

show that the President`s personal lawyer could be in some serious legal

trouble. That`s next.




VELSHI: Tonight, “The Wall Street Journal” is reporting that subpoenas

issued to people with ties to Rudy Giuliani and his associates indicated a

broad federal investigation examining Giuliani`s business dealings.


Quote, “Subpoenas described to “The Wall Street Journal” listed more than a

half a dozen potential charges under consideration, including obstruction

of justice, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States,

making false statements to the federal government, serving as an agent of a

foreign government without registering with the Justice Department,

donating funds from foreign nationals, making contributions in the name of

another person or allowing someone else to use one`s name to make a

contribution, and mail fraud and wire fraud.”


“Reuters” obtained one of these grand jury subpoenas, which requests that

the recipient provide, quote, “all documents, including correspondents,

with or related to Rudolph Giuliani, Giuliani Partners or any related

person or entity, and documents related to any actual or potential

payments, or agreements to or with Giuliani.”


Glenn Kirschner, Mieke Eoyang are back with us.


Mieke, what do you make of this new reporting that there are actual, actual

investigations and grand jury inquiries into things having to do with Rudy




think this comes as a little surprise given that his two associates were

arrested trying to flee the country and he`s been up to his ears in

something really confusing and terrible.


And I think it`s really a fair question to ask, “Was Rudy Giuliani acting

as an unregistered agent of a foreign power?” because his behavior in this

Ukraine investigation, as we have seen his relationships with the former

prosecutor general of Ukraine, the stories that he was spreading, it makes

no sense that he would be doing this unless there were some other financial

motive because these stories are so bizarre–




EOYANG: –it is hard to understand where they come from.


VELSHI: There is only one thing more bizarre, Glenn Kirschner, and that is

the conversation Rudy Giuliani had with Ed Henry on Fox News on Saturday

discussing his relationship with President Trump. Let`s listen.





YORK CITY: You can assume that I talk to him early and often–




GIULIANI: –and have a very, very good relationship with him, and all of

these comments, which are totally insulting–




GIULIANI: I mean, I`ve seen things written like he`s going to throw me

under the bus.


HENRY: Right.


GIULIANI: When they say that, I say, he isn`t, but I have insurance.




VELSHI: “He isn`t, but I have insurance.” Glenn, what`s he saying there?

That sounds like a threat, but he kind of talks like a mob boss. So I`m not

quite sure what to make of that.



for an attorney to issue sort of a public ultimatum against his client. I

mean, there are so many data points that suggest Rudy Giuliani is sort of

up to his neck in potential criminal conduct.


And if we look at all of those data points, not only the eight or nine

crimes, you just listed that he`s being investigated for. It might be

easier to list the crimes he is not being investigated for. But as Mieke

said, his associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, are already indicted,

perhaps his future co-conspirators. There`s been reporting that Lev is

getting ready to cooperate, and (inaudible) he may have tapes.


You also have - you have Rudy issuing that strange ultimatum. So all of

these things in combination suggest that the Southern District of New York

is hot on Rudy`s trail. But here`s the one great unknown that really does

concern me, Ali. Is Bill Barr going to put his thumb on the scale and

prevent the Southern District of New York from going after Rudy Giuliani

perhaps as a way to prevent Rudy Giuliani from working his way up the chain

and flipping and cooperating against Trump?


I mean, thus far, it seems like Bill Barr has let the SDNY do what it does

so well, aggressively investigate crime and bring prosecutions as, for

example, against Lev and Igor. Let`s see if he continues to give the SDNY

the autonomy it needs to bring charges against Rudy Giuliani if



VELSHI: Thanks to both of you again. Glenn, good to see you again. Mieke

Eoyang, thanks for sticking with us tonight.


Coming up, how Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren welcomed billionaire

Michael Bloomberg to the Democratic presidential race. That`s next.




VELSHI: It was only few weeks ago that the Democratic presidential primary

field was still shrinking. But with less than three months until the first

votes are cast, another - another new entrant has joined the already

crowded field.


Former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, made his entry into the 2020

contest official yesterday. The 77-year-old billionaire has vowed to self-

fund his campaign and he`s kicked off his campaign with a $37 million ad-

buy for context.


That is more money than the campaigns of Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg

or Joe Biden have spent on the entire primary race so far, as of last

month`s filing deadline, and barely less than the entire amount already

spent by Bernie Sanders. Again, just on one ad-buy.


Bloomberg`s progressive opponents have already taken aim at his lavish






billionaires have the right to buy elections. Multi-billionaires like Mr.

Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.



making a bet about democracy in 2020. He doesn`t need people. He only needs

bags and bags of money.




VELSHI: Charlie Cook is the Editor and Publisher of “The Cook Political

Report” and a columnist for “National Journal.” He is an NBC News Political



Charlie, how does this change the race?




dismissive of Bloomberg that he`s got problems with the African-American

community because of stop-and-frisk.


He is a billionaire businessman at a time when the parties go in a

progressive collection. But it`s funny, you could go through every single

one of the credible Democratic candidates and come up with good reasons why

each one of them can`t win the nomination, but every single one of them is

going to.


But the fact that he doesn`t have to spend time on Iowa, New Hampshire,

Nevada, South Carolina, that he could be spending time - spending his ad-

buy on a dozen, two dozen states at once. Worry about 56 other states or 46

other states rather than just those four.


It`s really interesting to see that it could be like a whole new paradigm,

kind of like–


VELSHI: Right.


COOK: –Trump being able to run last time with spending less money.


VELSHI: Because the current paradigm is that unless you come in first,

second or third in Iowa, you are not a contender.


COOK: Exactly, but that`s all about momentum. The first four states are

about momentum and then the last 46 are about delegates because there

aren`t that many delegates in the first four states.


Bloomberg, he can concentrate on delegates from the get-go. So it`s - I`m a

little skeptical, but he`s going to - he may have a whole different set of

rules than every other Democrat has to run with.


VELSHI: You base this on the math that you`ve run on delegates and how this

works. And if this somebody - if this race continues to be as competitive

as it is and somebody doesn`t get a majority of the first round of

delegates, the whole situation at the convention changes because a second

vote includes a whole lot more delegates.


All of those super-delegates that are excluded from the first round then

come in. So if you - if somebody doesn`t get a majority of the 1,600 or so

delegates on the first ballot, a contested convention, unusual though it

is, could be the kind of thing that Bloomberg could be looking at.


COOK: Exactly. 70 percent of the delegates are going to be picked by the

end of March so that if you don`t have someone with anywhere near a

majority at that point and there are only 25 percent of the pledged

delegates left from there until June, then you probably aren`t going to

have anybody anywhere near a majority going into the convention. But I

would just never use the term brokered convention because we don`t have

brokers in American politics anymore. But contesting convention, that`s a

real possibility.


VELSHI: You wrote something interesting in your column that I believe is

just published. You said, “Notice these arguments, if all taken” - the

arguments against the existing contenders - “if all taken equally

seriously, effectively eliminate every credible Democratic contender. But

profundity alert, someone has to win the Democratic nomination.”


You`re right, logically, but the point that Michael Bloomberg is trying to

make, and he makes it - he made it today actually, when someone said, are

you saying that no one else can beat Donald Trump. Listen to it in his





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some are saying that they see your decision to run now

as an indication that you feel that the current candidates in the field are

weak and they can`t get the job done. Is that accurate?



way. I think that there is a greater risk of having Donald Trump re-elected

than there was before. And in the end, I looked in the mirror and said, I

just cannot let this happen.




VELSHI: There`s a weird flavor, the way he talks about himself, but he is

making a point that he actually doesn`t think the others can win and he can

beat Donald Trump.


COOK: Well - yes. I mean - the thing about it is, what I disagree with the

question that was asked of him was, I think he`s afraid that Elizabeth

Warren will win the nomination and can`t beat President Trump and that he

has no confidence or very little confidence that Vice President Biden can.

I think if Biden were doing better or Warren was doing worse, then I don`t

think Bloomberg would be in this race.


I mean - and if he just wanted to stop Warren, he could just run a - he

could just pay for a super pact to stop her. But I think he sees an opening



VELSHI: You think about this a lot. Do you share his view that any of the

other candidates in there are not as likely to beat Donald Trump?


COOK: I think some candidates are more likely than others. Look, if this is

a referendum up or down on President Trump, I think he loses that. The

question is, is it going to be a referendum on something else or someone

else? And if Democrats nominate just someone that`s not as polarizing as

President Trump is, they will win that election.


The question is, can - are they - what is the risk tolerance for Democrats

in this race? How much do they want to risk? How far out there do they want

to go and run the risk of re-electing him?


VELSHI: Charlie, good to see you. Thank you for your analysis tonight,

Charlie Cook.


COOK: Thank you, Ali.


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

begins right now.








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

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

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

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

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