new voting right act TRANSCRIPT: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, 12/6/2019

Guests:
Greg Miller, Rick Stengel, Joe Neguse, Ana Marie Cox
Transcript:

COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: I want you to have a good weekend but I want you

to know you`re going to have to be up early on Monday. 9:00 a.m. Monday,

Judiciary Committee holds its next public impeachment hearing – ought to

be kind of a doozy.

 

Half an hour later, 9:30 a.m. Monday morning, there are oral arguments in

federal court in the emoluments lawsuit. Also on Monday, we`ll be waiting

for prosecutors to drop their sentencing memo that`s due in the criminal

case against Rick Gates who was the deputy campaign chairman for Trump.

They`re going to recommend how much prison time he ought to get.

 

Also on Monday, the inspector general of the Justice Department should

release its review of the FBI`s decision to open up the Russia

investigation in 2016. That`s all happening on Monday plus a bunch of other

stuff.

 

Tomorrow is going to be a day off. Sunday is going to be a day off.

Hopefully, Monday is going to be nuts. See you then. That does it for us

tonight. We`ll see you again on Monday, but it`ll be crazy. It`s now time

for “Last Word.” Ali Velshi is in for Lawrence. Good evening, Ali.

 

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST:  None of this is true, Rachel. None of this is

true. Your viewers do not have to get up in the morning to do all this

because anything good that happens on Monday you will tell them about at

9:00 p.m.

 

MADDOW:  Yes, but its live events. I mean, the impeachment hearing is live,

obviously, and on television at 9:00.

 

VELSHI:  Yes.

 

MADDOW:  That 9:30 an emolument hearing is one of those rare federal court

hearings that we`re going to have live audio of. So you`re going to listen

and watch in stereo. I mean, it`s going to be a crazy day.

 

VELSHI:  I shall be watching along with you my friend and then I`ll see you

on Monday night. You have a fantastic weekend, Rachel.

 

MADDOW:  I will do. Thanks, Ali. Much appreciated.

 

VELSHI:  Ahead tonight, what does the White House want after weeks of

protest that the administration couldn`t participate in the impeachment

proceedings; the White House`s top lawyer has just rejected an offer to

participate in the impeachment proceedings.

 

And Pelosi versus Trump. The Speaker of the House is taking the president

head on as he attempts to derail the investigation into his Ukraine

actions.

 

Plus, at the end of the show, what was the most shocking statement that

came out of the Trump administration this week? It is something that

deserves a lot more attention than it got.

 

But first tonight, the national security threat coming from the White House

– damaging evidence against the president continues to come out of the

impeachment investigation and a blockbuster report in the “Washington Post”

shows just how the president`s actions have put U.S. interests in danger.

 

Thanks to President Trump`s habit of using a vulnerable cellphone. Russians

possibly knew about his attempts to extort Ukraine long before that

information was made public, officials tell “The Post.”

 

Phone logs released this week by House Democrats showed multiple calls from

Trump`s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to White House phone numbers at

critical moments during the pressure campaign on Ukraine.

 

The calls underscored the degree to which Trump and Giuliani seemed to have

coordinated their efforts. But the “Washington Post” reports that those

unsecured calls were just the beginning.

 

According to current and former officials the president speaks with Rudy

Giuliani and others, “all the time on cellphones.” Vulnerable to monitoring

by Russia and other foreign actors.

 

“It is absolutely a security issue, a former Trump aide told the

“Washington Post.” It is a bonanza for them.”  That Trump and his personal

lawyer would regularly skirt security protocols in their private chats is

of course hypocritical. Recall that the president made an issue about how

Hillary Clinton handled sensitive information during the 2016 election.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  We know Hillary can`t be

trusted. We`ve learned that with America`s security. You take a look at her

e-mail situation. Can we trust her with our security?

 

How can Hillary manage this country when she can`t even manage her e-mails?

We can`t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn`t understand the meaning

of the word confidential or classified.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI:  More than that, the president seeming carelessness constitutes a

significant threat to national security, and it`s not the first time.

Remember that just a month into his presidency the president dealt with a

North Korean missile test in the Mar-a-Lago dining room.

 

Then he discussed highly classified intelligence with Russian officials in

an Oval Office meeting in May 2017. And, as we also learned from the

impeachment investigation, he talked loudly about his plot to extort

Ukraine on a phone call with E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland. President

Trump has never been particularly careful in his handling of sensitive

information.

 

And U.S. officials suggest to the “Washington Post” that it was a virtual

certainty that Russia had listened in on Trump`s phone calls with Giuliani,

telling the paper that the Kremlin may have been able to “learn about

aspects of Trump`s attempt to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival

months before that effort was exposed and could have used those insights to

adapt or amplify its propaganda promoting the baseless claim that Ukraine

rather than Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee in the 2016

election.”

 

In fact, one former official told the paper that Russia likely knows more

about Trump`s conversations with Giuliani than impeachment investigators

do. “Congress and investigators have call records that suggest certain

things but have no means whatsoever of getting the actual text of what was

said,” that`s according to John Sipher, former deputy in chief to Russia

operations at the CIA. “I guarantee the Russians have the actual

information.”

 

Leading off our discussion tonight are Greg Miller, national security

correspondent for the “Washington Post.” He`s the co-author of that report

about President Trump`s unsecured phone calls.

 

Rick Stengel is a former undersecretary of state in the Obama

administration and an MSNBC political analyst. He`s the author of

“Information Wars: How We Lost The Global Battle Against Disinformation and

What We Can Do About It.”

 

Glenn Kirschner, former federal prosecutor and an MSNBC legal analyst.

Welcome to all of you. Greg, let`s start with you. You have done this

reporting. You are hearing from people who say the threat is not perceived

or possible. It is real.

 

President Donald Trump has been warned over and over again by officials who

work around him and national security officials, don`t make phone calls on

your personal phone. He continues to do it.

 

GREG MILLER, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON POST:  Yes. And to

me one of the more staggering things we`ve learned and reported in our

story was about the efforts of those closest to him to get him to stop

doing this.

 

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly urged him to use hard lines in the

White House, secure lines when he went back to the residence at night and

made phone calls. And he did this for a while.

 

But when he realized that John Kelly was then able to track logs of the

president`s calls and who he was speaking with, Trump got annoyed and

discontinued the practice and went back to the cellphone.

 

So, it`s not just his disregard for the security protocols that almost all

of his predecessors in the office have adhered to, it`s that he appears to

be trying to hide much of his communications from his own staff, from his

own people.

 

VELSHI:  This is a problem, Rick Stengel. You have spent much of your life

as a journalist, right. We use phones a lot. We talk to a lot of people.

It`s probably a hard habit to break. But this is not random. This is the

president of the United States. People before him had to go through this.

 

They`ve had to be told that someone can listen in on your conversations.

It`s not just that Donald Trump seems to be having conversations that are

casual, checking up with friends, but in fact, some of the important stuff

that we need to know about is stuff that is not done on the White House

logs, it`s done on this, as Greg Miller says, to avoid the scrutiny of his

own staff but endangering possibly national security as a result.

 

RICHARD STENGEL, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE:  Of course it`s a national

security risk. Now, Donald Trump tweeted tonight that he had only used

government issued cellphones as though that rebutted the “Washington Post”

story. That`s false, too, in the sense that even government issued

cellphones are not secure either.

 

And when you think about it, it`s not just the Russians who are listening,

and there are probably a half-dozen other nations. And when they know

something about what you`re saying that your own staff doesn`t know, much

less Congress –

 

VELSHI:  Right.

 

STENGEL:  – that is security risk. The Russians have kompromat on him in

the sense that they know what he was maneuvering with the Ukrainians. They

listened to all the Ukrainian telephone calls, and then that gives them

leverage over the Ukrainians, too. That is real national security issue for

the United States.

 

VELSHI:  Glenn Kirschner, the problem here is of course we know certain

things that Donald Trump was saying about Ukraine because we know it from

the actual memos of the transcript that the White House has released. And

we think the average person who`s not a lawyer can imagine that that is

compromising.

 

So, the idea that there are other conversations possibly with Rudy Giuliani

who is like where`s Waldo – he is in the middle of everything here, we can

surmise as Rick Stengel says, others, the Russians or others have

information that our investigators that Congress doesn`t even have, that

his staff doesn`t even have.

 

GLENN KIRSCHNER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  Yes, Ali, and let me go to sort of

the gravest threat to national security. In your run up, you highlighted

the fact that the Russians could exploit some of what they were hearing for

propaganda value and build on that and continue to sort of pour

disinformation into for example our social media.

 

But you know what else they`re getting? They are potentially getting

information that they can use militarily to decide when they might want to

make moves on the Ukraine in what everybody calls that hot war that they

are involved in, their unlawful aggression into Ukraine.

 

Because if they`re overhearing the president of the United States saying

things like I`m going to withhold military aid, I know they want javelins,

anti-tank weapons, they`re not getting them right now until I get what I

want.

 

If you`re Vladimir Putin and you`re directing your military troops and your

efforts to attack Ukraine, do you think you`d want to know that kind of

important intelligence about U.S. Military operations.

 

VELSHI:  And Rick, let`s just talk about this because you were in the State

Department so you had to be conscious of the fact that the stuff that you

talked about, even casually, not to you, not the president of the United

States is of interest to foreign governments.

 

The “New York Times” is reporting on Donald Trump`s phone habits. When

President Trump calls old friends on one of his on iPhones to gossip,

griper, solicit their latest take on how he`s doing, American intelligence

reports indicates that Chinese spies are often listening and putting to use

invaluable insights into how to best work with the president and affect

administration policy, current and former American officials said. This is

better information than you can get by using spies.

 

STENGEL:  Yes.

 

VELSHI:  If you`re actually hearing from government officials who are

forming policy, spies are secondary, tertiary.

 

STENGEL:  You don`t even need spies in the age of the cellphone. When you

walk into the State Department as an employee one of the first things they

tell you is that anything you say even within the confines of the State

Department, that is not in a SCIF, a Secure Compartmented Intelligence

space is liable to be listened to by any number of other powers.

 

VELSHI:  Right.

 

STENGEL:  And when those people have information about you, even when he

talks to his friends, that is something that goes into their intelligence

service and they use.

 

And by the way, to speak to the earlier point, Zelensky is meeting with

Russians on Monday to begin negotiations about a possible cease-fire in

that Donbass region of Ukraine.

 

Think about what the Russians know about what Zelensky can do or can`t do

given to what the Americans have said.

 

VELSHI:  Right. Right.

 

STENGEL:  I mean, they have tremendous leverage that we`ve given them by

them listening in on our calls.

 

VELSHI:  Greg Miller, what`s your sense of how much of what you`ve reported

on and people have spoken to you about this – how much of this is

conjecture and how much of this is them knowing things like Rick Stengel

knows, that you could be picked up talking in the State Department let

alone user your random phone that`s not protected by the government?

 

MILLER:  Look, I don`t think that there`s any real chance that this is just

merely conjecture here. I mean, we have actual cases. I mean, four years

ago two American diplomats were surveilled by Russian intelligence in

Ukraine – in Ukraine where Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Gordon Sondland

and others have having conversations now.

 

And the Russians actually leaked that conversation during the Obama

administration as a way of driving a wedge between the United States and

Europe.

 

I mean, they have substantial intelligence capabilities in Ukraine, and it

is a former Soviet state that they pay extremely close attention to. So, I

just really don`t think that we`re talking about theoretical risks here.

 

VELSHI:  Glenn Kirschner, I think the line that stood out to me the most

was that it is possible that adversaries including Russia have better

information on what Giuliani and Trump and others were talking about than

our own investigators.

 

In other words, you can`t even subpoena this information. The texts of

those phone calls don`t exist if you weren`t otherwise spying or tapping

the phone call.

 

KIRSCHNER:  Ali, you hit the nail right on the head. As a federal

prosecutor for 30 years, trust me, I acquired a lot of information about

bad guys` cellphones, but I had to do it legally.

 

So if I wanted something as basic as the call detail records, the numbers

that two cellphones were dialing or receiving calls from, I had to issue a

grand jury subpoena.

 

If I wanted what was called cell site information, where a phone was at the

time it was being used, I need to either obtain a search warrant or a court

order.

 

And the granddaddy of all sort of cellphone investigative measures, if I

wanted to listen in realtime to what somebody was saying, I had to get a

Title 3 wiretap and the legal hoops and hurdles we had to jump through as

law enforcement are enormous.

 

Rightfully so, because if the government are going to surveil your calls in

realtime, we want lots of protections in place. None of those protections

apply to Russian intelligence agencies or other foreign intelligence

services –

 

VELSHI:  Yes. We do want those protections. We do want to know that our

government doesn`t eavesdrop on our phone calls, except someone else might

be doing so.

 

KIRSCHNER:  Yes, and they have things that we don`t have, that the people

who are going to prosecute an impeachment case don`t have. That is an

enormous security risk.

 

VELSHI:  Guys, thanks very much for kicking this off for us. Glenn

Kirschner, Greg Miller and Rick Stengel, I appreciate that. Thanks for

getting us started tonight.

 

Up next, could Nancy Pelosi`s House vote to impeach President Trump

(inaudible) President Trump, and then opt to not send that to the trial in

the Senate until they finally hear from all the witnesses in the White

House or the witness the White House is holding up?

 

And later, the strong women in the impeachment hearings that are pushing

back against President Trump. At the end of the hour, we`re going to have

the most important comment of the week that didn`t get nearly enough

attention. It was the most totalitarian comment that I have heard uttered

by the Trump administration today.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI:  Breaking news tonight, the House impeachment committees have

officially transmitted their impeachment inquiry report to the House

Judiciary Committee.

 

In a letter addressed to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, the

committee chair is right that the impeachment records are being transmitted

on flash drives and that those records include “certain sensitive

materials.”

 

Now, it is unclear to us what those sensitive materials are at this point.

Earlier tonight, despite weeks of complaints from Republicans that the

White House was not getting a fair shake in the impeachment process because

it wasn`t being allowed to participate, the White House has formally

rejected an offer from the House Judiciary Committee to, wait for it –

participate in the impeachment investigation.

 

The White House counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to Chairman Nadler

complaining about the proceedings and a senior administration official

tells NBC News, “the letter means the White House will not participate in

the House proceeding.”

 

Chairman Nadler shot back saying, “If the president has no good response to

the allegations, then he would not want to appear before the committee.

Having declined this opportunity, he cannot claim that the process is

unfair. The president`s failure will not prevent us from carrying out our

solemn constitutional duty.”

 

On Monday, as Rachel told us, the Judiciary Committee which is charged with

drafting articles of impeachment will hear evidence from House Intelligence

Committee lawyers on the investigation into the president`s conduct towards

Ukraine.

 

Joining me now, Democratic Congressman Joe Neguse of Colorado. He is a

member of the House Judiciary Committee, a committee that is going to,

congressman, gain notoriety amongst Americans that it has not had since

Watergate probably.

 

REP. JOE NEGUSE (D-CO):  Good to be with you, Ali.

 

VELSHI:  Congressman, what is the process now? What happens? You – I

assume you have learned that your committee has received this information

on flash drives. What actually happens next?

 

NEGUSE:  So, I did and reviewed that letter just before appearing on your

program. So, as you know, the report has been officially submitted to the

Judiciary Committee from the Intelligence Committee, the Government

Oversight Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

And the evidence underlying that report has also been transmitted to the

Judiciary Committee for its review. We`ve noticed a hearing for Monday

where we will have an opportunity to hear from the counsel for the

Intelligence Committee, both the majority and minority and give them an

opportunity to present the evidence in greater detail.

 

And then ultimately, the committee will have a solemn duty ahead, which is

to review that evidence against the legal standards that were defined and

expounded upon during the hearing earlier this week, where we had an

opportunity to hear from constitutional scholars discuss the constitutional

context and historical context of the power of impeachment under our

constitution.

 

And then make a decision from there as to what potential articles, if any,

to refer to the full House. And again, discharging that duty in a serious

and methodical way that meets the moment and we intend to do precisely

that.

 

VELSHI:  Congressman, tell me about the moment because you and I have

spoken for a long time since you`ve been elected. We had one of the earlier

conversations after you were elected. This is a moment. Whatever side of

this thing you are on, this is an important moment.

 

Your committee is now going to draft articles of impeachment that may

result in the impeachment for the third time of a president of the United

States. How do you think about this and how do you talk about this to your

constituents?

 

NEGUSE: You know, look, it`s a solemn moment. It is a somber moment for our

country and I thought that Speaker Pelosi stated it so eloquently earlier

this week when she talked about this matter fundamentally, not being about

politics.

 

But about our constitution, about us as a constitutional republic and the

duty we have to honor the oath that each and every one of us in the House

takes to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Look, I`ve been on your program before and as you know, I do believe that

there`s significant evidence that this president abused his power and

ultimately betrayed the national interests by corrupting our elections.

 

And Congress as a co-equal branch of government must honor its role under

Article I, to hold this administration accountable. So, it is a grave

moment for our country. I wish that my Republican colleagues would treat

this process with the respect that it deserves and to understand the

gravity of the matter that we are now considering.

 

I`m hopeful that some of them will ultimately choose country over party,

but that will remain an open question for now.

 

VELSHI:  Congressman, I want to read to you, you again have probably seen

this as does your chairman, Jerry Nadler, responding to the White House`s

refusal to participate in your proceedings.

 

He says, “The American people deserve answers from President Trump. The

House invited and then subpoenaed his top advisers. The president ordered

them not to show and continues to block key evidence from Congress. We are

disappointed that the president has once again failed to provide those

answers here.”

 

Now, you know that, your chairman has sent that to the White House. We have

read it. There are millions, if not, tens of millions of Americans who are

getting another story tonight.

 

They are getting a story about a process that is unfair, a process that

does not allow the president or his representatives to participate. How do

you respond to people, your constituents possibly who are hearing that

false tale?

 

NEGUSE:  Well, look, this administration has engaged in a wholesale

obstruction of Congress, the likes of which we have never seen before. And

we have an obligation on the Judiciary Committee and as members of Congress

to explain the president`s conduct and the realities of why ultimately that

conduct is not consistent with the way in which the framers intended our

republic to function.

 

And so, as you may know earlier this week when he had the opportunity to

question a wide range of constitutional scholars during the Judiciary

Committee`s hearing, I had an opportunity and chose to use my time to focus

on this very issue.

 

To highlight the historical context of the way in which even President

Clinton and to some extent President Nixon participated at greater lengths

in their impeachment inquiries than this president, who has directed his

executive branch to simply not participate at all.

 

And he has had every opportunity to engage in good faith and has chosen not

to and instead has, you know, released these outlandish letters by the

White House counsel, all in my view in an attempt to obfuscate from the

fundamental egregious nature of the president`s conduct that ultimately

undermines our national security.

 

So again, look, I`ve never lost faith that Congress is a co-equal branch

under Article I, would ultimately take the steps necessary to hold this

administration accountable, to discharge our oaths and neither should the

American people.

 

VELSHI:  Congressman, good to see you again. Thank you for joining me

tonight. Congressman Joe Neguse of the House Judiciary Committee.

 

Coming up, the speaker of the House versus the president of the United

States. Nancy Pelosi is just one of the strong women who have been at the

center of the impeachment saga. That`s up next.

 

And later, the House tried to strengthen voting rights today. We`ll tell

you how many Republicans voted in favor of that.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI:  This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed the world what fearless

authority looks like when she announced that the House will draft articles

of impeachment against President Trump. And speaker Pelosi pushed back when

a reporter questioned whether she made that decision out of hatred for the

president.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you hate the president, Madam Speaker? Speaker?

 

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  I don`t hate anybody. I don`t – I was raised in

a Catholic house, we don`t hate anybody. Not anybody in the world.

 

This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead

to the president`s violation of his oath of office. And as a Catholic I

resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me. I don`t

hate anyone.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI:  Speaker Pelosi has held strong and firm throughout this

impeachment inquiry but she`s not the only strong woman who`s played a

vital role in this process.

 

During both closed door and public testimony in the impeachment inquiry,

women stood out as star witnesses including Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill

and Pamela Karlan.

 

Their testimony offered startling revelations into President Trump`s abuse

of power, but they are not only being praised for their brave testimony,

they`re being praised for potentially bringing down Trump as women,

especially given the president`s long history of demeaning and allegedly

sexually abusing women. Let`s take a look at some of the testimony from

these fearless women.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: How is that foreign

corrupt interests could manipulate our government. Which country`s

interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been

criticizing is allowed to prevail.

 

FIONA HILL, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR ON RUSSIA: Some of you on this

committee appears 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 is being perpetrated

and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

 

PAMELA S. KARLAN, LAW PROFESSOR, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL: Maybe when he was

first running for President, he had never been anything other than a

reality TV show - you know that was his public - that was his public life.

Maybe then he could think Russia if you`re listening is an OK thing to do

but by the time he asked the Ukraine. Ukraine, if you`re listening, could

you help - help me out with my reelection, he has to have known that that

was not something consistent with his oath of office.

 

VELSHI: And when we come back, Zerlina Maxwell and Ana Marie Cox will join

me to discuss how strong women have played an important and vital role in

the impeachment inquiry. That`s next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI: While Speaker Nancy Pelosi`s leading House Democrats through the

impeachment inquiry, here`s what President Trump felt the need to address

today.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

TRUMP: The light bulb, they got rid of the light bulb that people got used

to. The new bulb is many times more expensive. And I hate to say it, it

doesn`t make you look as good, because being a vain person that`s really

important to me. It gives you an orange look. I don`t want an orange look.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI: They got rid of the light bulb. He also talked about toilets not

flushing properly today. Joining us now Zerlina Maxwell, the Senior

Director of Progressive Programming at Sirius/XM radio, an MSNBC political

analyst and Ana Marie Cox, the host of the political podcast, `With friends

like these.`

 

Thank you for joining me tonight. There`s some crazy stuff the President`s

been talking about but really, if you have been one of those Americans and

I think the number is about 70 million Americans who were glued to the

first week of impeachment testimony, you would have been taken aback by the

fact that the most - much of the most compelling testimony Zerlina, was

presented by women.

 

ZERLINA MAXWELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, that`s not surprising. I

think there`s a couple of different points throughout this Trump era if you

will, that have demonstrated that women are very angry and were willing to

make that known to everyone. So the day Donald Trump is sworn in, there is

bunch of MAGA people in DC but the very next day, women in pink hats

descended on DC.

 

Then there was also moments where Maxine Waters was reclaiming her time,

essentially saying that women are taking back this moment to quote

Charlotte Alter of Time magazine. She talked about this moment as the

moment that women thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the President.

 

We finally would have some sort of representation that was equitable and

now this moment is the Trump era instead and so in a lot of ways that

Maxine Waters moment, led us to the MeToo moment, also to Brett Kavanaugh`s

confirmation where I feel like women essentially were giving a primal

scream that they are not consenting to the white male leadership structure

that traditionally has led this country, that is not doing a good job

leading the country.

 

We`re literally living for impeachment and so women are actually standing

up against that and it`s wonderful to see so many different types of women,

none of these women are the same, none of them have the same presentation

but all of them are strong.

 

VELSHI: And Ana Marie, what`s interesting is when you look at some of the

key women and there were many by the way in the testimony but some of the

key women. Marie Yovanovitch wasn`t that they chose a woman, she was the

United States Ambassador to Ukraine.

 

When you look at Fiona Hill, it wasn`t that somebody chose a woman. This

was the woman in the job at the National Security Council who is the expert

on U.S. - Russia - Ukraine relations. When you look at Professor Karlan,

Pamela Karlan, it`s not that somebody went and chose a woman. This is a

woman who is a constitutional scholar and well informed.

 

So the fact is no one was looking at this for the stage craft.

 

ANA MARIE COX, POLITICAL REPORTER & HOST, POLITICAL PODCAST: That`s true

also but I will point out when it comes to the ambassador and Fiona Hill,

the other important thing about them is that they chose to be on the right

side of history. There are plenty of other people in similar positions who

did not speak up and who did not testify.

 

And these women had the let`s say, guts to do so.

 

VELSHI: You were going to say something else.

 

COX: But I also want to point out. Maybe but yes, but I don`t want to be

gender specific. I do think it`s important point out that when it comes to

the impeachment, white women have a lot of to atone for when it comes to

Trump.

 

Those are mainly white women that were participating in the impeachment

process and I`m all here for it but white women helped elect Trump, it`s

kind of the least we could do to help get rid of him. So I`m glad to see

them there but I also want to call attention like Zerlina said that Maxine

Waters is a huge part of it, also the undocumented women that have spoken

about being employed at Trump - Trump`s country clubs.

 

Those are just as important and then of course like you mentioned, there is

the fact that he is an admitted sexual predator and I feel like his crimes

against the country are important, that`s what he`s being impeached for but

those are not his biggest crimes against humanity and certainly not his

biggest crimes against women.

 

VELSHI: You know Jason Johnson tweeted something Zerlina that makes me

think about this. I want to just read the tweet, it says, “Literally every

woman that has testified during impeachment hearings has delivered the

strongest points and messages but somehow this country can`t figure out how

to put a woman in the White House.”

 

And the fact is Ana Marie Cox and Zerlina Maxwell and Alley Welsh as she

talking about this on the Last Word amounts to a hill of beans when it

comes to power structures, right? In the end, Jason makes an important

point. Women continue to go on changing our world and putting into stark

relief what you and Ana Marie are saying but we still continue to have the

same problem, right?

 

If it`s incidental that a woman happens to be the Ambassador to Ukraine so

be it. If there`s remarkable expert on Russia-U.S. relations who happens to

be a woman so be it. If the expert on constitutional law happens to be

women, so be it. We`re not putting her in the White House just yet.

 

MAXWELL: Yes, I feel like there is there`s an existential moment we`re

going through right now. We`re having this big debate about `electability`

but we`re missing what`s happening in this moment. We keep asking about

whether or not Elizabeth Warren can win in 2020 and we`re forgetting that a

whole bunch of women of all different colors and backgrounds won in the

last election we had in 2018.

 

And so the idea that a woman could not win when the woman who ran the last

time got more votes than the unqualified and unexperienced man running for

the same position, I think that we have to be honest about the fact that a

woman absolutely could win, that women are competent and that we generally

have to get rid of this notion where men are over estimated for their

competence and abilities and women are often underestimated which is why we

we`re so surprised when they show up and they do their job so

professionally often.

 

I`m more like wow, she seems to know her - her stuff. Well, yes, you don`t

get to be the Ambassador to Ukraine unless you know your stuff.

 

VELSHI: Ana Marie, just so that we don`t end up talking to women just about

women, we actually - I told my viewers something else earlier tonight and

that there are some people suggesting that the House may vote on

impeachment articles but not send it to the Senate and I actually already

have a few tweets that say, wow, that`s really weird.

 

Let me just read your tweet from John Dean who said, “Let`s impeach him now

and not send it to the Senate, rather keep investigating in the House and

add such supplemental articles as needed. Just let it hang over his head.

If the worst happens and he`s re-elected, send it to the Senate. But keep

investigating.

 

Because the President has tweeted tonight and others have said, let`s get

this done. You know what? We know what`s going to happen in the House.

Let`s go to the senate because he knows he`s not going to get outed by the

Senate. He`s not going to get kicked out of office. This is an interesting

concept. Impeach and don`t move forward.

 

COX: I like it. It certainly as I alluded to before, there are many crimes

that he deserves to answer for but I do kind of wonder at least in

theoretically if the Congress might not be painting a life size map of the

world.

 

If they chose to investigate everything that they could impeach him for.

The list is probably almost literally endless. You know it might be again

with election fraud but certainly it would continue to the caging of

children on the border and I - and the fraud and corruption and emoluments.

 

I mean really, every day, like whenever I think about this White House and

the crimes and the criming, I think of the Lucy and Ethel at the chocolate

factory and like trying to just keep up with the crimes coming out of the

machine like we just couldn`t do it.

 

I mean, I would love them to see investigate more. I worry about the

physics and of it basically. Like whether or not the time and phase

continue and could handle.

 

VELSHI: It is a real concern. Ana Marie and Zerlina, please stand by. We`re

going to squeeze in a break but when we come back, we`re going to talk

about the efforts to expand voting rights. This is important. I`m going to

tell you how many Republicans voted along with the Democrats on this one.

 

This may one surprise you.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

REP. TERRI SEWELL (D-AL): The price for freedom is not free. It has been

paid for and bought by those brave soldiers so that one day a little black

girl from Selma, Alabama could one day sit in aghast body.

 

I know I`m not the only black and brown colleague of ours that owes our

very presence in this chamber to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI: That was Congresswoman Terri Sewell before the House voted on H. R.

4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. Here is civil rights pioneer and

Congressman John Lewis who gambled in the final vote.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA): On this vote, the yays are 228, the nays the 187.

The bill is passed without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid on

the table.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI: That was the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act. Every re-

authorization of the Voting Rights Act since 1965 has received bipartisan

support. In 2006 192 Republicans voted for that re-authorization, 33 voted

against.

 

Today Republicans voted almost unanimously against the measure. The lone

Republican to vote in favor was this man Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of

Pennsylvania. Back with us Zerlina Maxwell and Ana Marie Cox. Zerlina, I

don`t even know what to say about that.

 

MAXWELL: Well, look, I`ve been thinking a lot about this because I`m trying

to think through the demographic shifts that are happening in the country

so few research has predicted that this country is going to be majority

non-white by 2045.

 

And what that means is that the Republicans you know, traditional

Republican voters are going to be a minority, nationally, not necessarily

in some of these more gerrymandered districts but essentially, I think what

this says is they`re aware that the demographic shifts and the present

realities are not on their side.

 

And for me, that`s fundamentally a problem. People died from my right to

vote. My grandfather, my aunt Ann, both marched in Selma, Alabama. My aunt

was only 17 years old and she hid from the Ku Klux Klan the night before

the March.

 

And so for me, the right to vote is a sacred one and for Republicans not to

understand that we should expand access to more people and then fight over

the ideas later and whoever gets the most votes wins. That`s the system

that we should all want. That`s really a troubling reality to be living

through.

 

VELSHI: Ana Marie Cox, this is a layup. This is not complicated. This is

not asking people to stretch the imagination very much to vote for the re-

authorization of the Voting Rights Act - Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

COX: I don`t think so. No one here thinks so. You know I`m a little bit of

an expert on Congressman Fitzgerald - Fitzpatrick, see I`m an expert

because I looked at his Wikipedia page and you know, what`s interesting

about him is he`s a former FBI agent. So clearly he`s a member of the deep

state or he is an institutionalist who values the structures of democracy.

 

It also turns out he was head of their election crimes commission and was

once stationed in Ukraine and Iraq. So I think he knows something about the

fragility of democracy and speaking of the fragility of democracy, I know

the same numbers that Zerlina talked about and what frightens me about the

Republicans voting against this is the brazenness of it.

 

Their willingness to show their hand that they do not even want to try to

compete on a level playing field. To me, and I`ve said this before but to

me, this terrifies me because to me this says that this is a party that

isn`t worried about winning a fair election because they don`t think

they`re going to be anymore.

 

VELSHI: It`s remarkable. That is an interesting and thought provoking way

to end this conversation. Ana Marie Cox, thank you for joining us tonight.

Zerlina, thank you as well.

 

Coming up, Attorney General Bill Barr made a shocking and chilling comment

or threats this week about respecting the police and now tonight,

Congressman Val Demings, a law enforcement veteran and Orlando`s first

female police chief is taking him to task. That`s next.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

VELSHI: Finally tonight, it`s been a jam packed and historic week of news

with the announcement that the House will draft articles of impeachment

against President Trump as well as Donald Trump`s much discussed NATO

summit.

 

Rudy Giuliani`s latest you John to Ukraine but there`s one thing that

happened this week that cannot be overlooked or lost in the news coverage.

I was shocked when I heard it on Tuesday. I said that and that it might be

one of the most totalitarian like statements issued yet by a member of the

Trump administration.

 

It was Attorney General Bill Barr in a speech to police officers, talking

about Americans needing to respect the police and what could happen if they

don`t.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: But I think today

American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and

the service that is given by our law enforcement officers and they have to

start showing more than they do.

 

 

The respect and support that law enforcement deserves and if communities

don`t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the

police protection they need.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

VELSHI: Zerlina Maxwell and Glenn Kirschner are back with us. Glenn, I -

just - I just, I think it`s relevant here. I don`t talk about my background

a lot. My parents grew up in apartheid South Africa. I find that chilling.

I find what he said chilling that I - I - he had me until he said if

communities don`t start showing that respect, all the first part about

sacrifice and service and police and - and - and what they do and - and how

difficult their job is, he had me at that.

 

The threat, I thought was chilling.

 

KIRSCHNER: And I have to take a deep breath before I answer this one Ali

because for 30 years, I worked beside men and women of law enforcement.

More officers, detectives, investigators and agents than I can count.

 

Right here in Washington DC, I worked with the Washington DC Metropolitan

police department, FBI, ATF, DEA, Park Police, Capital Police, Secret

Service Uniformed Division, Metro Police, Amtrak Police, Postal Police, the

U.S. Marshal Service, I could go on.

 

In the military, I worked with the MP`s, the military police investigators.

The CID agents. You know what I never heard a single one of them say? I

never heard a single one of them say, I am here to protect and serve but

only if the citizens show me the proper respect.

 

What Bill Barr said as anti-American. It`s the exact opposite of what law

enforcement agents and officers stand for and like you say, welcome to Bill

Barr`s autocracy or totalitarian state. It is chilling and despicable.

 

VELSHI: Zerlina, I don`t need to - to queue you but I want to read to you

because it`s important what Rep. Val Deming`s, Orlando`s first female Chief

of Police wrote in an Op-ed in The Washington Post. It was entitled, `What

William Barr doesn`t understand about law enforcement.` “Law enforcement is

not a protection racket. It is a sacred charge. We take an oath not to any

individual or faction but to the constitution or in other words, to society

at large because at the end of the day, law enforcement and the community

are the same.

 

The police are the community. The community is the police. Modern policing

at its best, is a dynamic, constructive, collaborative, empowering

relationship between officers and civilians predicated on the fundamental

principle that in the eyes of the law, all of us are equal.

 

When Barr referenced certain communities that have failed to give the

police proper deference, it seems clear, he meant black and brown

communities, the very communities in which we should be working the hardest

to build relationships and cooperation. Zerlina.

 

MAXWELL: It`s so infuriating when folks try to play respectability politics

when it comes to how black and brown people should try to stay alive during

these interactions with the police. I mean, when you hear the Chief Law

Enforcement Officer in the country say, you can complain later.

 

No, that`s not what the Fourth Amendment actually says in fact. You don`t

have to complain later. As an American, you have rights and you can

articulate them and ask law enforcement why are you stopping me. Why are

you asking me these things? No, I don`t want you to go in the trunk.

 

There is a new movie out, `Queen and Slim` which tackles this very issue

and I think that a lot of Americans need to perhaps see this film because I

think one of the most powerful things about it is, it shows you just how

universal this fear of the police is.

 

I, as a black American can be driving home tonight, Ali and I can be pulled

over and my life can be over in a second and then they will tell a story on

the news tomorrow, potentially about what I`ve ever done in my past that

can justify it and that is not OK.

 

And I just think that you know if Bill Barr is so concerned with Americans

not respecting law enforcement then I think he needs to take a maybe a car

ride down the street and talk to Donald Trump because he has disrespected

law enforcement and the FBI throughout this entire administration.

 

And I think that perhaps they need to respect law enforcement and their

investigations, not American citizens who are just going about their daily

lives.

 

VELSHI: Glenn Kirschner, final word to you. Is there - is there some

consequence to saying this. This is - this crosses the line into something

that as you said, is anti-American.

 

KIRSCHNER: Bill Barr should stand up and say you know what? That was a poor

choice of words. Our law enforcement officers and agents are going to

protect everybody, every community, regardless of how we think they should

act.

 

He really needs to stand up and correct the record.

 

VELSHI: Thank you to both of you tonight. Powerful words to end the show.

Zerlina Maxwell and Glenn Kirschner. That is tonight`s Last Word. The

Eleventh Hour with Brian Williams begins now.

 

 

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.>