IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

JP Morgan Chase responds to Rep. Hill. TRANSCRIPT: 7/10/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O'Donnell.

Guests: Carol Lam, Ron Klain, Neera Tanden, Katie Porter

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

It`s the Rachel Maddow primary week here at MSNBC. 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  In which nobody votes. 

O`DONNELL:  That`s right.  They just listen.  They listen to candidates.  They listen to your interviews with these candidates and they will all be better informed voters by the end of the week. 

MADDOW:  Well, I certainly hope.  You know, I sort of enjoyed long candidate interviews and they always keep me up both the night before and the night after.  So, it`s not something I can do with 25 candidates in the race indefinitely.  But I will keep trying. 

O`DONNELL:  And they keep you up because you are going back and saying, oh, I should have, and then I should have and then I should have. 

MADDOW:  Yes, and I imagine, what could have, should have, like it could have gone this, if I hadn`t started with that, if I gone this way, if I should have followed up that way, instead of that way.  You know how it is. 

O`DONNELL:  The sleepless life of the perfectionist. 

MADDOW:  I know.  I`m 14 and I look like this. 

O`DONNELL:  Thank you, Rachel. 

MADDOW:  Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL:  Well, Katie Porter will join us again tonight.  Many of you will remember how she grilled the chairman and CEO of J.P. Morgan, Jamie Dimon, on how a single mother could possibly survive financially on the entry level wage that J.P. Morgan Chase pays single mothers and others in Katie Porter`s California district.  Jamie Dimon had no answer at all, but Congresswoman Porter just got a very interesting letter from J.P. Morgan Chase that she will share with us later in this hour. 

Also later in the hour, we will see Savannah Guthrie`s very sad interview conducted this morning with a new accuser of Jeffrey Epstein who says that he began sexually abusing her when she was 14 years old and that he forcibly raped her at 15 years old. 


SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS ANCHOR:  Did Jeffrey Epstein rape you? 

UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE:  Yes, he raped me, forcefully raped me and knew exactly what he was doing, and I don`t think cared.  What hurts even more so is that if I wasn`t afraid to come forward sooner, then maybe he wouldn`t have done it to other girls.  I feel really guilty.  To this day, I feel really guilty. 


O`DONNELL:  We will listen to more of that deeply disturbing interview later in the hour. 

But, first, the most important thing to remember when reviewing today`s news is something that is not part of today`s news, something that wasn`t mentioned in the labor secretary`s press conference about why he decided not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein for sex crimes when the labor secretary was the U.S. attorney in Florida.  The most important thing to remember about all of the news today involving the sex crimes of Donald Trump`s old friend, Jeffrey Epstein, and the refusal to prosecute those alleged crimes by Alex Acosta when he was a federal prosecutor is that Donald Trump is himself an accused sexual assaulter, an accused sex criminal. 

He stands accused by dozens of women.  Donald Trump does himself.  Most recently, Donald Trump was accused of deliberate forcible violent rape, accused of that by the columnist and author E. Jean Carroll.  And even more important than that than the accusations, the president of the United States is a confessed sexual assaulter. 


DONALD TRUMP, THEN-REALITY TV STAR:  I moved on her actually.  She was down in Palm Beach, I moved on her and I failed.  I`ll admit it.  I did try to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) her.  She was married. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That`s huge news there.


O`DONNELL:  That`s the president of the United States.  And only that president of the United States would ever have considered appointing Alex Acosta to anything years after Alex Acosta was exposed as the federal prosecutor who decided not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, and according to a Florida federal judge violated the law and the way he handled the Jeffrey Epstein case. 


TRUMP:  I moved on her like a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).  But I couldn`t get there.  And she was married.  Then all of a sudden, I see her, she`s now got the big phony (EXPLETIVE DELETED) and everything. 


O`DONNELL:  Only that president would have appointed Alex Acosta to a federal job of any kind, because any other president would have seen a day of reckoning was going to come eventually for Alex Acosta as it has now finally come.  But only Donald Trump would not care about that day of reckoning, about how Alex Acosta handled a major sex crimes case against a rich old friend of Donald Trump`s in Palm Beach. 


TRUMP:  I have to use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her.  You know, I`m automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them.  It`s like a magnet.  Just kiss.  I don`t even wait.

And when you`re a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything. 

BILLY BUSH:  Whatever you want.

TRUMP:  Grab them by the (EXPLETIVE DELETED).  You can do anything. 


O`DONNELL:  That`s Donald Trump`s confession to sexual assault.  You can do anything.  That`s Donald Trump`s description of the first sexually assaultive moves he likes to make on women.  You can do anything. 

And for Donald Trump, that means you can get away with anything.  It means his friends and his people should be able to get away with anything.  It means the White House staff can violate the Hatch Act whenever they want.  You can do anything.  That`s the motto of the Trump White House. 

And it certainly means that Donald Trump`s labor secretary could make a deal not to prosecute an old friend of Donald Trump`s for sex crimes and the labor secretary should be able to get away with that and Donald Trump should be able to get away with choosing Alex Acosta as his labor secretary because you can do anything. 


BUSH:  How about a little hug for Donald.  He just got off the bus. 

TRUMP:  OK, absolutely.  Melania said this was OK. 


O`DONNELL:  Melania said this was OK.  That`s the president of the United States who appointed Alex Acosta, who held a press conference today in which he tried to explain his decision not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein on federal charges. 


ALEX ACOSTA, LABOR SECRETARY:  In 2008, a major newspaper described the Epstein prosecution like this: A Florida grand jury that is a grand jury convened by the district attorney of Palm Beach County had charged Epstein with the lesser offense.  At that time, the Epstein legal team was elated.  He would have avoided prison all together. 

But then the United States attorney`s office in Miami became involved.  Epstein got an ultimatum.  Plead guilty to a charge that would require jail time and registration or face federal charges. 

And that was the week more than 10 years ago that Epstein went to jail. 


O`DONNELL:  After Alex Acosta`s press conference today in which he blamed the very forgiving deal he made with Jeffrey Epstein on the local Palm Beach prosecutor, Barry Krischer, Mr. Krischer gave this statement to NBC News: I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta`s recollection of this matter is completely wrong.  The U.S. attorney`s office produced a 53-page indictment that was abandoned after secret negotiations between Mr. Epstein`s lawyers and Mr. Acosta.  The state attorney`s office was not a party to those meetings or negotiations and definitely had no part in the federal non-prosecution agreement and the unusual confidentiality arrangement that kept everything hidden from the victims. 

No matter how my office resolved the state charges, the U.S. attorney`s office always had the ability to file its own federal charges.  Mr. Acosta should not be allowed to rewrite history. 

Barry Krischer`s statement makes the central element of Alex Acosta`s defense today untrue.  The state attorney`s office was not a party to those meetings or negotiations and definitely had no part in the federal non- prosecution agreement.  If that is true, that demolishes everything that Alex Acosta said today. 

Alex Acosta was asked about a private meeting he had with one of Jeffrey Epstein`s defense lawyers, a meeting that many legal observers are calling improper and unethical. 


ACOSTA:  The meeting that was alleged was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement was negotiated, not before.  The agreement was signed in September.  After the agreement was negotiated, one of Epstein`s attorneys asked for a meeting, asked for a hearing.  I was giving a speech.  I was staying at a hotel.  I agreed to have a brief meeting I believe at 7:00 a.m. rather than open the office, I spoke with that attorney. 


O`DONNELL:  "The Miami Herald" reporter who exposed that meeting, Julie Brown, said this after this press conference today. 


JULIE K. BROWN, MIAMI HERALD REPORTER:  He talked about the meeting and how the deal had been signed by the meeting, time of the meeting, that October meeting.  Well, yes, there was a piece of paper signed and they were still really in the thick of negotiations and it was certainly still talking about there was a follow-up letter from one of Epstein`s lawyers that went to Mr. Acosta that said thank you very much for your agreement to keep this all secret.  It was clear that that part of the agreement was discussed at that meeting that he had called some kind of false facts or fake news kind of thing about that meeting. 

Well, the reality was their negotiations were going all the way through until June when he finally pled, because he appealed to the Justice Department.  There were all kinds of talks still going on after the initial signing of that agreement. 


O`DONNELL:  Katie Rogers of "The New York Times" asked Alex Acosta if he was confident that the president would continue to support him. 


ACOSTA:  I`m doing my job.  If at some point the president decides that I am not the best person to do this job, I respect that.  That is his choice.  I serve at the pleasure of the president. 


O`DONNELL:  He serves at the pleasure of a president who is an admitted sexual assaulter.  Donald Trump is the only president in history who could find pleasure in having Alex Acosta in his cabinet. 

Leading off our discussion tonight are Carol Lam, a former U.S. attorney from the Southern District of California and a former San Diego superior court judge. 

Barbara McQuade is with us.  She`s a former attorney from the Eastern District of Michigan and an MSNBC legal contributor. 

And Ron Klain is with us.  He`s a former senior aide to Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama and a former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

And, Barbara McQuade, I want to start with you with your experience as a federal prosecutor.  You were listening to a former U.S. attorney up there today explaining his decision not to prosecute someone in a major sex crimes case.  What was your reaction to the totality of what you heard? 

BARBARA MCQUADE, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR:  Yes, I`m ordinarily reluctant to criticize decisions by a fellow prosecutor because cases can be complicate and there might be reasons you would make a decision.  But there are some things he said today that just did not ring true.  One is the idea that he was somehow bound by what the state court prosecutor was doing, that because the state court prosecutor was going to charge a very low offense that somehow it was on him to come in and rescue that case. 

And as the prosecutor has stated, they were in no way bound together.  He could have filed his own 53-count indictment without regard to anything that the state court prosecutor was doing.  I thought his answers were inadequate about the secrecy of the agreement.  He had some tortured logic about protecting the credibility of the victims in case they should become witnesses if the deal should fall apart.  That`s no reason to violate the Crime Victims Rights Act.

And finally I also thought his answer was inadequate that granted immunity to any potential coconspirators.  All he said the focus was on the top player.  That clause could apply to anyone in the world, and to include it without specifying names, they specified names and also said and any potential co-conspirator will not be prosecuted and we`re suspending the grand jury.  That language is so wide, you could drive a truck through that and it makes me wonder if there was not someone else they were seeking to protect with that language. 

O`DONNELL:  Carol Lam, the whole time, I think many of us were listening and the whole thing is being blamed on the local Florida state prosecutor, we`re all kind of wondering, well, what`s the local Florida prosecutor going to say and pretty much after that press conference is over, he said all of that is untrue. 

CAROL LAM, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:  Yes, that`s not a great situation when you had a press conference and the person was the person you were addressing here comes forward and says you`ve completely misstated what happened. 

Ands, you know, the best case scenario for Alex Acosta coming out of that press conference was that he ran essentially a bungled investigation, because he was congratulating the Southern District of New York for bringing charges based on what he said was new evidence.  Well, the Southern District of New York indicted Epstein for events that took place partly in Florida from 2002 to 2005. 


LAM:  Those facts existed at the time Acosta`s office was running their investigation.  So to have entered into a non-prosecution agreement and then a dozen years later say, well, we are so happy that another district has done what we should have done 12 years ago, but we are blameless as Barbara said, just doesn`t ring quite right. 

O`DONNELL:  Ron Klain, we are here discussing this because this is Donald Trump`s world.  This is the only president of the United States who in the vetting process for his labor secretary would have discovered this and they did.  It was discussed by the vetters in the vetting process. 

And this history for Alex Acosta was perfectly OK for Donald Trump. 

RON KLAIN, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VP BIDEN:  Yes.  I mean, I think, Lawrence, that`s the key point.  The biggest news is that there is no news here at all in some respects.  This was known that Mr. Acosta had bungled the case and a judge said he violated the law in not notifying the victims about his decision, that there was information about his sweetheart deal and Donald Trump nominated him anyway and the majority of the Senate and Republicans confirmed him anyway. 

And, by the way, not just for any job.  Mr. Acosta is the senior federal official in charge of most of our anti-human trafficking programs.  So, we have a person who turned the other way on the trafficking of young girls be in charge of now enforcing the laws that protect many young women in the workforce for these trafficking things. 

So, the only thing worse than putting Alex Acosta in charge of the Labor Department is the fact that we sit here and he is still in charge of the Labor Department and Donald Trump seems un-inclined to do anything about it. 

O`DONNELL:  Barbara McQuade, what do you make of his answer and his defense for his one-on-one meeting with one of the Jeffrey Epstein lawyers? 

MCQUADE:  I don`t know.  He did point out that the agreement had been signed in September and that meeting occurred in October.  He made quite a point of that.  Therefore, that meant it could not have had anything to do with the agreement whatsoever. 

But I think as the reporter has pointed out from the "Miami Herald," what they were discussing there wasn`t the substance of the agreement itself, but the secrecy of it and not informing the victims of filing it in Miami instead of Palm Beach where the victims reside.  So, I don`t know if I was satisfied by his answer there just because the meeting occurred after the formal document was signed doesn`t mean they didn`t discuss things that might have been improper. 

And it really does seem odd to have a meeting like this to discuss the substance of the case without the line prosecutors who are assigned to the case being present and involved in that discussion. 

O`DONNELL:  Carol, it seems to me, if you were U.S. attorney, you don`t want to be in a meeting like that alone, because you want today or any time in the future have your witnesses to come forward, the other assistant U.S. attorneys who are in the room with you to say, well, this is what happened in the meeting. 

LAM:  Yes.

O`DONNELL:  I just can`t -- I`m stunned that a U.S. attorney would do a one on one meeting out of the office with a lawyer in a highly controversial case like this. 

LAM:  It`s a very, very dangerous thing to do.  And, in my office, I had a policy against ever doing that for two reasons.  One, you want to have the line prosecutor to make sure what you are being told by the defense attorney is true with respect to what has happened in the case, and as you mentioned, you don`t want to finish that meeting and have the defense attorney go out and tell your line prosecutors, well, the U.S. attorney told me that, you know, we could do this.  And then, you know, then your line prosecutors are left without recourse because they weren`t at the meeting. 

So, the fact that such a meeting took place, whatever the subject matter, that`s the problem.  The line prosecutors don`t know exactly what was discussed there, and that`s a very dangerous thing to do. 

O`DONNELL:  Ron Klain, the House Oversight Committee wants to hear from Alex Acosta.  Alex Acosta, presumably, doesn`t want to testify to Congress again during his entire career as labor secretary.  So, what happens next? 

KLAIN:  Well, what happens is I think that he`s going to need Attorney General Barr to invent a special secret, wonderful amazing privilege that prevents the secretary of labor for having testified before Congress, because if he comes before Congress, he is going to be exposed for not just horrible judgment in this case, but for all the lies he`s now told about it, for all the misleading statements he`s made about it.  I don`t see how he survives that hearing. 

And indeed, I think if that hearing stays on the books, my guess is that the Secretary Acosta may reconsider his position and resign before he has to testify before Congress about the events he discussed today. 

O`DONNELL:  Carol Lam, Barbara McQuade, Ron Klain, thank you all for starting us off tonight on this important subject.  Really appreciate it.  Thank you. 

And when we come back, you will hear Savannah Guthrie`s very, very sad, very grim interview this morning with a new accuser of Jeffrey Epstein who says that he began sexually abusing her when she was 14 years old and she said that he forcibly raped her when she was 15 years old. 


O`DONNELL:  A new accuser came forward for the first time against Jeffrey Epstein.  She says that she was forcibly raped by him when he was 15 years old.  Jennifer Araoz was 12 years old when her father died.  She was raised by her mother in Queens, the New York City borough where Donald Trump grew up. 

But Jennifer grew up poor.  She was attending New York City`s special public high school for the performing arts when she says she was recruited by a woman hanging around outside the high school scouting talent for Jeffrey Epstein.  She described that recruiter`s technique today to Savannah Guthrie on the "Today" show. 


SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS ANCHOR:  The first time she brought up the name Jeffrey Epstein, how did she describe him? 

JENNIFER ARAOZ, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ACCUSER:  That she`s a great guy.  He`s just saying like, you know, he`s helped me.  I struggled.  That she was similar to me. 

GUTHRIE:  Did she say he could help you with your career? 

ARAOZ:  That was a big part of it. 

GUTHRIE:  And when you think of her now, you used the phrase recruiter, you felt like she was looking for someone for him? 

ARAOZ:  For sure, 100 percent, yes. 

GUTHRIE:  When you first met him, what did you think?  What did he say?

ARAOZ:  Very nice.  Basically saying that, you know, he heard a lot about me.  You know, the recruiter was talking such nice things. 


O`DONNELL:  A few weeks later, she said Jeffrey Epstein took her into his massage room. 


GUTHRIE:  In that moment, it didn`t --

ARAOZ:  But at the same time, I was scared too because I didn`t know if he would get angry.  I kind of just followed.  I had just my underwear on.  That`s how he liked it. 

So, I would give massages back.  He would potentially later on turn over and play with himself.  And he would also like when I would play with his nipples.  He used to get turned on by that. 

And then he would finish himself off and that would be the end of it.  And he would still give me the 300.  Normally, I would get it from the secretary who would leave it in a drawer in the massage room. 

GUTHRIE:  How often do you think you were there? 

ARAOZ:  Yes, like once or twice a week my freshman year? 

GUTHRIE:  Did you ever tell him your age? 

ARAOZ:  I told the recruiter.  I was mentioned it in front of him, yes. 

GUTHRIE:  You are 14 years old. 

ARAOZ:  Yes, he knew very well my age.  He knew exactly who he was hanging out with.  I don`t think he cared.

GUTHRIE:  When Araoz turned 15, she says things took a turn. 

ARAOZ:  You know, just take your underwear off and get on top.  I said, I didn`t want to.  He, you know, very forcefully kind of brought me into the table.  I just did what he told me to do.  I was really scared.  I didn`t think he was going to rape me. 

GUTHRIE:  Did he hold you there? 

ARAOZ:  Yes.  Uh-huh. 

GUTHRIE:  No question in your mind, he knew you didn`t want that to happen? 

ARAOZ:  Yes.  There was no way.  I don`t want to say I was screaming or anything of that nature.  But I was terrified and telling him to stop.  Please stop. 

GUTHRIE:  And did he? 

ARAOZ:  No, he did not stop.  He had no intention of stopping.  That`s what he wanted, that`s what he got. 

GUTHRIE:  When you left there, you never went back? 

ARAOZ:  After that day, I never went back.  I was terrified.  I was really scared.  I didn`t want that to happen again. 

GUTHRIE:  And you left school.  Did you leave because it was in the same neighborhood? 

ARAOZ:  Yes, it was so close. 

GUTHRIE:  In your mind, did you use the word rape, did you recognize it then as rape? 

ARAOZ:  No, I don`t think I did.  I just thought it`s my fault.  Like I was like obligated.  That`s what you were supposed to do.  So, I didn`t know better. 

GUTHRIE:  When did you stop blaming yourself? 

ARAOZ:  It was a long time, really. 

GUTHRIE:  Araoz said Epstein staff continued to reach out to her for more than a year but she did not respond.  She says she didn`t immediately tell anyone, including the police, something she said she now regrets. 

Did Jeffrey Epstein rape you? 

ARAOZ:  Yes, he raped me.  He knew exactly what he was doing.  I don`t think cared.  What hurts more so is if I was not afraid to come forward sooner, maybe he wouldn`t have done it to other girls.  I feel really guilty, to this day, I feel really guilty. 


O`DONNELL:  She said that she did share that story with her mother, ex- boyfriend, and two close friends back at that time.  Jennifer Araoz is not part, as far as we know, of the ongoing Southern District of New York case against Jeffrey Epstein which could involve many, many, many girls. 

But Jennifer Araoz in New York state court did file a petition in which she is seeking information from Jeffrey Epstein through deposition to find records and determine the identity of recruiter and other people who worked for Jeffrey Epstein at the time she said she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein. 

Joining our discussion, Ruth Marcus, a deputy editorial page editor and columnist at "The Washington Post".  She`s also an MSNBC contributor. 

And Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress. 

And, Ruth, let me begin with you and I open it to your reaction in any way you want. 


Well, I have watched this interview and read the transcript of this interview so many times today.  And each time, it becomes even more heart breaking and even more powerful. 

I`m struck by a few things -- the degree to which this was part of a plan.  A well-orchestrated and a plan that unfolded over not weeks, but months, that led up to what she now understands is rape. 

I`m so interested that she took the step today to try to get the information about other perpetrators here about the identity of the recruiter, because Jeffrey Epstein, if he did what she says he did and did what he has been accused of by the Southern District of New York, is a terrible, despicable actor, but he also didn`t act alone and there are other people who need to be brought to justice in this. 

I`m also struck equally by that sense of shame, that sense of self loathing and self blame see this h and her incredible vulnerability to the process that he was engaged in, because he knew with girls that young, with girls that are needy, with girls who have lost their fathers, this was the kind of victim he was looking for who was not going to be able to stand up to his demands and then to his forcefulness.  And she said he knew what he want and he got what he wanted, and that is just to me one of the most heart breaking lines in all of this. 

O`DONNELL: One of the names of Jeffrey Epstein`s recruiters has been published in many different accounts over the years. I would expect her to be discovering that rather easily through the deposition process. But Neera, here you have this description of the recruiter standing - hanging around outside the high school for performing arts in Manhattan looking possibly for hopeful young teenage actresses in high school hoping for a future and maybe needing financial help to get there.

NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT OF CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I think I wanted to reemphasize what Ruth said in a way I think what is just so angering about this is how the recruiter went to a girl, found a girl whose father had just recently died. Who was probably in one of the most vulnerable stages she will ever be in having just lost a parent and now having a single mom.

Plainly went after this girl because she wouldn`t have the protections that other kids would have. It was effective because she didn`t tell anybody about it. The idea that there was this plot to go basically go after this vulnerable girl makes it nearly impossible to believe this was the first or only time this happened.

Obviously there is a lot to uncover here, but really looking at a predator, who has a pattern of behavior who has perfected his skills upon really victims. I think it would take a long time to discover all the victims that have been harmed by this monster.

O`DONNELL: Ruth and Neera just please stay with us. We are going to squeeze in a break here and we`re going to continue with more of her reaction to the other developments in this story today right after this break.



ALEX ACOSTA, LABOR SECRETARY: Today we know a lot more about how victim`s trauma impacts their testimony and this too is important. Our juries are more accepting of contradictory statements and understanding that trauma impacted memories work differently. And today our judges do not allow victim shaming by defense attorneys.


O`DONNELL: Ruth Marcus, I wanted to get your reaction to that part of Alex Acosta`s statement today?

MARCUS: A little bit jumping out of my chair here. We are not talking about 1956 or 1976. We are talking about 2006, 2007. Come on. It may be things have gotten a little bit easier today and we have all gotten hopefully more educated about why victims may not come forward, why we should or why a girl wouldn`t tell her parents or things like that.

The issue of this issue was front and center for people in the 2000s. It`s not ancient history. It`s just not - maybe there was a hard case to bring, but that`s just not an adequate explanation. Let me just say quickly that the one thing I thought was really missing from Mr. Acosta`s performance today was just any little hint of contrition or regret on his part. It just seemed absent.

O`DONNELL: Yes, Neera, he was asked repeatedly - repeatedly offered the opportunity to apologize fully or say a single word of apology and he never did.

TANDEN: Think of it this way. He basically did a sweetheart deal for a predator who now has an actual prosecution. Just to say if I had prosecuted more aggressively, how many victims wouldn`t have been victimized? I can`t imagine a prosecutor who wouldn`t feel some regret over those sets of facts.

No shame with this President or any of his people. I have to just say the entire performance reminded me that this man, this prosecutor ignored a 53- page indictment and had some strange issues for coconspirators and one of the close friends of Jeffrey Epstein later gave this man a pretty good job.

I think we don`t know where this leads. We don`t know where this goes. But we do have a President who has as a sexual predator and in this case has a lot of ties to him as well.

O`DONNELL: And Ruth, this is a story that could only happen in the Trump presidency because this issue came out during the vetting of Alex Acosta and he survived the Trump vetting because in Trump vetting, this isn`t a problem.

MARCUS: Let`s recall how we got Alex Acosta. We got Alex Acosta because the previous candidate for Labor Secretary had to withdraw when there were allegations of spousal abuse. Alex Acosta`s issues relating to this clearly inadequate prosecution deal I guess looked mild in comparison to that.

More broadly, this is not an administration that let us say is well-known for its excellent vetting. Even when they find things, they tend to think they won`t cause trouble. Because I guess they have plowed their way through a lot of things. It kind of goes to the question of contrition.

Contrition actually makes - an apology has a good impact on a lot of people. A sincere apology has a good impact. But it has a bad impact on one person which is Donald Trump. He sees it as a sign of weakness. He famously doesn`t apologize. He doesn`t like it when others apologize and that may be another piece of what was going on here today.

O`DONNELL: Ruth Marcus and Neera Tanden, thank you for joining us on this difficult subject. Really appreciate it. And when we come back, Congressman Katie Porter will join us to tell us how JPMorgan Chase has finally, finally responded to her withering cross examination of CEO Jamie Dimon in a Congressional hearing.


O`DONNELL: As we showed you on this program in April, freshman Congresswoman Katie Porter really made life difficult for JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon when she asked him how a single mother like her living in her California Congressional District could make ends meet on the entry level wage of $15.60 an hour that Jamie Dimon pays new employees.

Congresswoman Porter who was a law professor specializing in Consumer Protection Law before she ran for Congress and did the detailed math on the monthly expenses of a single mother trying to live on JPMorgan Chase`s entry level wage and after running through every detail of the typical monthly living expenses in her district, she asked Jamie Dimon how that single mother could possibly stay solvent?


REP. KATIE PORTER CALIFORNIA (D-CA): She is short $567. What would you suggest she do?

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: I don`t know. I got to think about that.

PORTER: Would you recommend that she take out a JPMorgan Chase credit card and run a deficit?

DIMON: I don`t know. I have to think about it.

PORTER: Would you recommend that she be overdraft at your bank and be charged overdraft fees?

DIMON: I don`t know I have to think about it.


O`DONNELL: Jamie Dimon still doesn`t know and is still thinking about it. He has never come up with an answer. But now his Chief Lobbyist wants to talk to Congresswoman Porter. JPMorgan Chase`s Head Lobbyist Jason Rosenberg wrote Congresswoman Porter a letter saying "we have a large employee and philanthropic footprint in California`s 45th Congressional District and we would like to provide an overview of the work we do throughout Orange County."

So what will Katie Porter do? Will she meet with Jamie Dimon`s Chief Lobbyist and see if he is figured out the math on how a single mother could possibly stay afloat on that entry level wage that Jamie Dimon pays at JPMorgan Chase? We will ask Katie Porter that and more when she joins us after this break.


O`DONNELL: When Congresswoman Katie Porter pressed the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase Jamie Dimon on how a single mother could survive on the entry level wage that pay he pays at JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon eventually came up with the idea of calling up that single mother and seeing if he might be able to find a way to advise her towards solvency.


DIMON: I would love to call her up and have a conversation about her financial affairs and see if we can be helpful.

PORTER: See if you can find a way for her to live on less than the minimum that I`ve described?

DIMON: Just it would be helpful.

PORTER: Well, I appreciate your desire to be helpful, but what I like you to do is provide a way for families to make ends meet.


O`DONNELL: And joining us now is Democratic Congresswoman Katie Porter from California, she is a member of the Financial Services Committee. Congresswoman Porter, thank you very much for joining us again tonight. So did Jamie Dimon ever call you up and explain to you how he thinks that hypothetical single mother could survive on the $16.50 an hour?

PORTER: Absolutely not. It`s been three months to the day since we had that exchange at the hearing, and I finally received a five-sentence letter from his lobbyist, not from Mr. Dimon himself. And the letter basically says that they`d be willing to meet with me in my Congressional District to discuss their philanthropic work.

And I`ll be honest with you, my constituents, they work hard and they want to be able to make ends meet themselves. They want to be paid a living wage so they can go into the grocery store and take care of their families. They don`t want to hear about the corporate philanthropy and handouts that JPMorgan Chase is trying to get away with to distract from the real problem here which is they`re not sharing in the incredible revenue including the windfall from the Trump tax plan that the bank is earning.

O`DONNELL: I read the lobbyist`s letter to mean that he wants to basically sit you down and explain to you how important JPMorgan Chase is to your Congressional District, something that big business has been doing to members of Congress for a couple of centuries now.

PORTER: Yes, that`s going to be a hard pass. I don`t need to be condescended to. I want to work on these problems. I`m really serious about the difficulties that families face in make ends meet. It`s what I studied before I came to Congress and it`s what I think about every day.

So I don`t need to be pandered to. I don`t need to be told that they have employees. I know that. I talk to my constituents. I know I have folks that work at JPMorgan Chase. I have a Chase branch right next to the grocery store I go to with my kids.

I want to hear about - from Mr. Dimon, who wants to wear the mantle of leader of the business community, you want to wear that mantle then with that comes the responsibility to come up with real solutions to the problems families are facing around wages, around the high cost of housing, and the high cost of child care.

O`DONNELL: And the gap you identified when you worked out all the expenses was $567 a month. And no one has suggested to you any way of making up that gap from JPMorgan Chase, including the wild idea of how about paying more.

PORTER: Yes. They completely refuse to address that. And frankly, as I listened to this clip again, which I`ve watched several times, I found Mr. Dimon`s answers that "I don`t know, I`d have to think about it," "I don`t know I`d have to think about it." he wasn`t even responding thoughtfully to the questions. He just decided that he simply wasn`t going to engage with me.

And I was really making a good faith effort to have a conversation that I think the American people across the political spectrum want to be having with the leaders of our nation`s largest businesses, which is what is the responsibility of businesses to share with their employees the revenue that they make in good times?

We know those businesses impose layoffs and stagnant wages in hard times. And what`s the obligation to share with your employees when times are good like they`ve been at JPMorgan Chase?

O`DONNELL: Congressman Porter, could you stay with us through a commercial break? I want to squeeze in one more commercial break because I`d love to ask you about something I saw in your hearing today that I have never seen before. Can you just hang with us over a minute here?

PORTER: Absolutely.

O`DONNELL: Great. We`re going to be right back.


O`DONNELL: Here`s something we`ve never seen a Chairman of the federal reserve asked about in a Congressional Hearing.


REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA):  If you got a call from the President today or tomorrow and he said I`m firing you, pack up, it`s time to go, what would you do?

JEROME POWELL, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE: Well, of course I would not do that.

WATERS: I can`t hear you.


POWELL: My answer would be no.

WATERS: And you would not pack up and you would not leave?

POWELL: No, ma`am.

WATERS: Because you think the President doesn`t have the authority? Is that why you would not leave?

POWELL: I have - I`ve kind of said what I intended to say on the subject, and what I`ve said is that the law clearly gives me a four-year term and I fully intend to serve it.


O`DONNELL: Congresswoman Katie Porter was that in hearing. I`ve never seen a moment like that. What was your reaction to that?

PORTER: Well, I was really encouraged to hear Chairman Powell stand up for the institution of the Federal Reserve. It`s really important that it be independent from political pressure. Whether it`s from Congress or from the President.

And so it was frankly he does it far better in Washington for the first six months here. I haven`t seen a lot of people with spines. So it was really nice to see somebody stand up to the President and make clear that they`re committed to doing their job, not to just doing what the President orders them to do.

O`DONNELL: Well, he does have a law that allows him to stand up that way, which most other Trump appointees do not. But -

PORTER: I`d agree, but a lot of those Trump appointees, in the Cabinet Secretaries, for example, have statutes that they`re charged with enforcing. That`s part of taking on the mantle of the agency. And yet we see many of them unwilling to take on those responsibilities.

That`s frankly how I feel about Secretary Carson and why I`ve called on him to resign. I was heartened to hear Mr. Powell say that he intends to continue his work. I don`t agree with him about everything, but I do admire the way he stood up for the fact that the Federal Reserve`s independence is a really important component of our economy.

O`DONNELL: I want to get your reaction as both a law professor and a Member of Congress to the Appeals Court Hearing yesterday on the Affordable Care Act where the Trump Administration is trying to destroy it completely and have it declared unconstitutional.

PORTER: Yes, this is a disaster for the American public. And if the court rules the ACA unconstitutional, millions of Americans will lose their health care. In my own district the most recent analyses show that about 6%, 44,000 people would lose health care almost immediately.

The estimates could be higher than that. So I think this is a really unfortunate effort by the Trump Administration to try to do through the courts what they weren`t able to do legislatively even with the Republicans in the majority.

The reality is the vast majority of Americans want to improve the Affordable Care Act. They want to try to address prescription drug pricing. They don`t want to see health care dismantled. They don`t want to return to a time when people with pre-existing conditions, newborn babies coming into this world couldn`t even get health insurance.

O`DONNELL: Congresswoman Katie Porter gets tonight`s LAST WORD. Thank you very much for joining us again, Congresswoman. Really appreciate it.

PORTER: Thank you.

O`DONNEL: Really appreciate it. Thank you. "THE 11TH HOUR" with Brian Williams starts now.