The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 12/5/2016

Guests: Justin Bamberg, David Cay Johnston, Christina Greer

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW Date: December 5, 2016 Guest: Justin Bamberg, David Cay Johnston, Christina Greer

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now with Ari Melber in for Rachel.

Good evening, Ari.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you.

And thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. Rachel is off tonight. She`ll be back tomorrow.

Now, looking back, maybe the tipping point, the point of no return was Jade Helm. This all started about 18 months ago when the U.S. military announced an 18-week training exercise in several states in the American Southwest. The idea was for Green Berets and Navy SEALs and other Special Operations troops to train in different kinds of terrain, that they might find themselves in overseas.

Now, that was the official stated purpose of Jade Helm. But on conspiracy theorist websites, and on the far right fringe, Jade Helm was the first stage of a martial law takeover of Texas and maybe other states. On the fringe right, Jade Helm was actually the military setting up prison camps for American citizens and also something to do with aliens hiding underground.

Jade Helm was all about a network of underground tunnels where the entrances were disguised by mysteriously closed down Wal-Marts. The tunnels went into deep military bases, DUMs for short, DUMs. That`s helpful.

Now, if you line the maps upright, you can see with your wide open eyes the network of underground Wal-Mart tunnels and that would be where the Chinese troops would set up their headquarters or maybe the Wal-Mart where they stash all of the Texas patriot guns after the Jade Helm troops helped take them away. Whatever it was, folks, it was all in the maps.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are maps circulating that show several underground, deep underground bases around the United States. There are also maps circulating that show tunnels that connect those bases. You will also see how Wal-Marts connect to some of the bases and some of the tunnels.

ALEX JONES, RADIO HOST, INFO WARS: In the document, Texas, Utah, and conservative areas of southern California are listed as hostile areas.

RICK WILES, TRUNEWS: I hope Jade Helm 15 is not the preparation for or the actual implementation of a roundup of patriotic men who have the capacity to influence and inspire the citizenry to resist a coup against the republic.


MELBER: We hope so, too.

Now, that was the Jade Helm conspiracy theory, just basically a nutty theory. It could have ended there, a few people out on the fringe uploading the videos or calling into radio shows. But it spread. It grew.

And here`s why it may be a tipping point. It went from the fringe to mainstream conservative and fast. The Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, actually ordered the state guard to monitor the Jade Helm exercise so that, quote, "Texans know their safety constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed."

To be clear now, he called out his state guard to monitor the U.S. military exercises.

He wasn`t alone. Texas Senator Ted Cruz said he wrote to the Pentagon to demand answers about Jade Helm. Senator Rand Paul, of course, a presidential contender at the time, said he was looking into the issue.

Suddenly, along with legitimate policy issues like guns or abortion, this fantasy conspiracy of a military takeover of Texas became some sort of sleeper litmus test in Republican politics. How seriously you took the threat of this takeover of Texas was a litmus test for the GOP presidential primary. That is just nuts.

Now, President Obama has cited this very case study, which you may or may not remember, as exactly what was wrong with the modern GOP.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We did a military exercise, Texas and suddenly all of the folks in Texas are like, they are going to take over right now.


I`m serious.


And then the senator down there said, yeah, we better look into that. And the governor says, well, I don`t know.

What do you mean you don`t know?


What does that mean? Are -- really? You think that like the entire Pentagon said, oh, really, you want to declare martial law and take over Texas, let`s do it under the guise of routine training missions and everybody is going to be -- but they took it seriously. This is in the swamp of crazy that has been fed over and over and over and over again.


MELBER: Now, it may not have been totally obvious at the time, but Jade Helm was a kind of an early warning about how fake news can be mainstreamed, especially when the misinformation is powered through fact- free partisan politics and especially when fringe believers just want to hear candidates say they`ll look into some theory. It`s a rhetorical specialty of the candidate who took conspiracy theories to another level this year, Donald Trump, and he was perhaps eclipsed only by Ben Carson for peddling things he should have known better than to peddle.

Dr. Ben Carson was not using the scientific method when he offered up theories like this.


DR. BEN CARSON (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, were both classmates in the class of 1968 at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow where they became acquainted with a young Vladimir Putin. So, these are deep ties.


MELBER: Deep. Well, those three people were not classmates in Moscow or anywhere.

For starters, Putin is a good decade and a half younger than the other two. Ben Carson later said he learned about the ties between those leaders from advisers across the government that he wouldn`t name, including the CIA, and he added, "There`s a lot more information I`ve gotten that`s probably not appropriate for the revelation."

Well, there was a time Carson asserted the Chinese had deployed troops in Syria.


CARSON: We also must recognize it`s a very complex placement. You know, the Chinese are there as well as the Russians and you have all kinds of factions there.


MELBER: Now, that could have been a simple misstatement. We all make them. But what`s important, rather than deal with that kind of a defense, Carson aides just doubled down. They said their own special intelligence determined China had deployed in Syria, which it had not.

Ben Carson was getting a lot of weird and accurate information from a lot of places in the campaign and we haven`t mentioned the story he likes to tell about how there was a Star of David on the back of the $1 bill -- spoiler, there isn`t one -- or that the pyramids in Egypt were not built by the Egyptians and were used as grain silos, no matter how archeologists protested.

And, tara tara ra ta, Dr. Ben Carson today, as you may have heard, is Donald Trump`s nominee for the secretary of housing and urban development, which is strange on a few levels, the fact that Carson, though he is a remarkable surgeon, has no qualifications for a federal housing agency. The fact that during the campaign Trump called him a pathological person and compared him to a, quote, "child molester" at point, and the fact that Carson, according to his closes advisers just today still doesn`t feel qualified for the job or want it.


RACHEL MARTIN, NPR: A few weeks ago, you were quoted in media reports saying Ben Carson wasn`t interested in the cabinet job. And I`m quoting now, "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he`s never run a federal agency, the last thing he`d want to do is take a position that could cripple the presidency." Is that no longer the case?

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: That was not accurate, by the way. Dr. Carson`s position was that he preferred that Mr. Trump could find someone that could fit the role of what he wanted. He would have preferred to stay in private industry but that`s not what Mr. Trump wanted. He wants Dr. Carson on his cabinet and he`s going to have to serve.


MELBER: That was this morning. This nomination was just weird when you consider all of the ways in which Ben Carson seems to have a kind of disconnect with reality. If Dr. Carson is confirmed, he`ll not only be -- he won`t be the only conspiracy theorist in Trump`s inner circle.

Take General Michael Flynn, who is Trump`s national security adviser. He`s been a frequent distributor of conspiracy theories online, including on Twitter and fake news stories, slamming Hillary Clinton, including the false and slanderous allegation she was involved in some kind of child sex trafficking.

General Flynn`s son, who also his chief of staff and we know how a government transition e-mail account already has been pushing a Hillary Clinton sex ring conspiracy theory that also involves a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., and he continued to push that theory over the past day, even after a gunman entered that very restaurant and fired at least one shot. The gunman reportedly telling police he was there to self- investigate one of those conspiracy theories.

We want to be clear tonight, we don`t know enough yet about the mental state of that man or what motivated him or even whether even him or his actions fit into any political affiliation. We`re reporting on this because it`s so much bigger than that individual gunman. The fact is, that Trump`s national security advisory and his chief of staff are peddlers of these kinds of outlandish conspiracy theories with all kinds of real consequences.

And when the transition team says Trump was well-briefed on his call with the president of the Taiwan, they might be taking a page out of Ben Carson`s campaign defense that his private briefings Trumped the actual facts and intelligence because while Trump reportedly skips most intel briefings offered by the actual CIA, this is one of the people who is briefing him.

There`s a lot of concern about fake news right now in the body of politic. We can add fake intelligence to that list as well, as it appears to be working its way right up through the new president`s cabinet.

Joining us now for historical context is Michael Beschloss, NBC`s presidential historian. Great to have you here tonight.


MELBER: How new is this in our government and politics what does this say to you about how much we have to worry about this?

BESCHLOSS: Well, I think we`re seeing this grow in recent years. You know, you well remember in 2004, when a lot of people who voted for George W. Bush thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 or there was something grossly wrong with John Kerry`s war record, which is heroic, in Vietnam, and now, we have an outgoing president who many people have been led to believe is a secret Muslim or was born in Kenya. Still a lot of people believe that.

These things did not all happen by accident.

MELBER: Have other outsiders who have come to Washington -- and we know it`s been popular throughout history in both parties -- relied as much on picking outsider candidates? It`s hard to come up with any example of someone like Carson who has so publicly suggested that he neither wants nor is capable of doing this post?

BESCHLOSS: Yes, I guess one point for honesty and candor. But beyond that, usually we`re watching a huge experiment. We`ve never seen a president like Donald Trump come in with, as we`ve said before, no military experience, no public service experience. He wears that as a badge of honor.

But would you think that he would be trying to sort of calm people who were worried about the fact that there are certain things he doesn`t know and hasn`t done.

John Kennedy had been in Congress for 14 years yet he felt that because he was only 43 years old, the youngest elected, he`d better appoint some pretty senior people to foreign policy positions which he did. George W. Bush came in after being governor of Texas with no foreign policy experience. He immediately appointed Colin Powell as secretary of state.

I`m surprised that Donald Trump doesn`t say a lot of people who voted against me, even some who voted for me, are unsettled by the fact that there are some things I haven`t done before, and maybe I can calm them down by appointing people who have had a lot of time in this work.

MELBER: What do you think about the idea that one of the traditional knocks against the press was to try to influence what the incumbent or traditional press would do and certainly that`s a feature of modern campaigns for a long time. What about the shift here that perhaps when you look at people like Steve Bannon in the White House who began -- worked to push out and the reliance on these stories, including what we just showed, the idea that their an effort to supplant the entire press, to replace it with your own web drop?

BESCHLOSS: You`ve seen Republicans saying in the most recent days saying we don`t need the press anymore, and that`s something different than almost the whole of American history because that`s only been possible during the time of the Internet which is, what, 15, 20 years.

So, we as Americans who want to preserve our democracy, we better think about new ways to make sure that in this age in which fake news can be disseminated in a very big way on the Internet, that people who read this will know how to disseminate, how to separate wheat from chaff.

MELBER: Right. I mean, this is -- this seems to be where it`s going when you have a president-elect so proud of his own communication abilities, which obviously served him well partly politically.

NBC presidential historian Michael Beschloss -- thanks for being here tonight.

BESCHLOSS: My pleasure, Ari.

MELBER: Appreciate it.

Coming up, we are going to talk to the attorney for the family in the North Charleston police shooting case that joins -- he`ll join us tonight. Stay tuned.


MELBER: Vice President Joe Biden paid a visit to his old colleagues in the U.S. Senate today. Now, tons of reporters gathered around to hear what he had to say. And he was a little bit pensive and also just this side of jolly.


JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Every time I come up here, I feel invigorated. I love this place. I mean, this is where I spent my life.

REPORTER: Are you going to run again?

BIDEN: Yes, I am. I`m going to run in 20.

REPORTER: For what?

BIDEN: For president. You know, so what the hell? Anyway --


MELBER: Now, regardless of whether the VP was kidding today when he said he was going to run in 2020, the Democrats know they need a plan. We`re going to take a deeper dive into what we`re learning about that a little later in the show.



JUDY SCOTT, MOTHER OF WALTER SCOTT: He will get his just reward and we have the federal trial and another trial to go. I`m just waiting on the Lord.

CHRIS STEWART, SCOTT FAMILY ATTORNEY: He may have delayed justice, but he did not escape it. We all saw what he did. We all saw what happened. But that`s the justice system. One person or two people can disagree.

JUSTIN BAMBERG, SCOTT FAMILY ATTORNEY: There is no way at the end of the day that former officer Michael Slager can escape what`s coming to him and that is a conviction and that is prison time.


MELBER: The lawyers and family of Walter Scott reacting today to that deadlocked jury in the case against the police officer who shot him. That was Michael Slager. The 50-year-old Scott was unarmed and fleeing when Slager shot him in the back last April. This was after a traffic stop in Charleston.

A bystander recorded video of the incident sparking national attention, outrage, and two indictments from local as well as federal authorities.

Now, we want to advise you, the video we`re about to show is very graphic in nature.


MELBER: The video, which was shown in the trial, showed not only that key moment of the shooting where Scott doesn`t look like he poses the kind of threat legally required to justify deadly force. It also showed the key moments after the shooting where Slager handcuffed Scott`s dead body and appears to drop an object near it.

Prosecutors accused Slager of planting evidence to stage a fight over a taser that never happened. You can see some of that here, according to that citizen-produced video. Now, the prosecutor told the jury that action was revealing because it showed Slager`s, quote, "first instinct after killing Scott was to stage the scene." The jury heard that evidence in the month-long trial, along with Slager`s denials that he ever planted evidence or fired without cause.

They deliberated over four days and after that deadlock, the jurors told the judge most of them were ready to convict but they were facing at least one holdout. The holdout wrote a letter to the judge saying that at times his heart was with the Scott family. He wrote, quote, "My heart does not want to have to tell the Scott family that the man that killed their son, brother and father is innocent," but he also wrote, "But I cannot with good conscience consider a guilty verdict."

The jury deliberated further but by this afternoon today, they hit a wall and the judge read their note as he ruled the case a mistrial.


JUDGE: I received a note that says, "We as a jury regret to inform the court that despite the best efforts of all members, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision in the case of the state versus Michael Slager."


MELBER: With no unanimous decision, the judge ruled a mistrial. Prosecutors quickly announced tonight they are going to try this case again. Now, if the jurors were correct that prosecutors were one vote away from a conviction, they may have good odds at a new trial.

But the entire act of pressing a murder case against any police officers an uphill battle. Prosecutors rarely bring these cases to begin with, and in the 78 cases against officers for shooting since 2005, only one case has resulted in a murder conviction.

Joining me now is South Carolina State Representative Justin Bamberg who represented the family of Walter Scott.

Thanks for joining.

Your reaction to the mistrial and what it says for a new trial.

BAMBERG: Well, it`s admittedly disappointing. Of course we wanted a conviction. Of course, we think a conviction was warranted.

But at the end of the day, this is not a win for a former officer Michael Slager. This is not a loss for the Scott family. This is just justice delayed and we do know that at the end of the day, the state, they are going to proceed forward, the feds are going to proceed forward and officer Slager will get what`s coming to him and that`s a conviction for murder or voluntary manslaughter.

MELBER: You are making a prediction about what the next case my result and there are a lot of people are asking how with such seemingly damning video, you couldn`t get a unanimous verdict in the first place? To those people, do you think their concern, outrage or skepticism is warranted?

BAMBERG: You know, I understand their concern. We all know it is very difficult to convict a law enforcement officer in this country. In part because with what they are tasked with doing every day, which is protecting and serving. They deal with difficult situations.

But here -- I mean, it`s without question, anybody with a soul would think that what officer Slager did was wrong. I don`t think that the problems with the jury here boil down to a question of fact. Fact, officer Slager shot an unarmed man running away with the first shot being at 17 feet and the last being at approximately 50. Fact, he attempted to plant the taser afterwards. Fact, he lied about what he did.

I think the concerns here with this one juror was questions of law and their interpretation of the law. Anybody who is familiar with trial work knows that is one of the risks you take whenever you do go to the jury.

MELBER: When you look at the issues of race that are so often raised here, what do you take from this and does it matter that this jury in a community that is very diverse was a breakdown of 11 Caucasian and one African- American?

BAMBERG: You know, when you look at the jury, of course you`d want it to reflect the population a bit more accurately. But hey, let`s call it how it is. At the end of the day, white people believe in justice in these situations, too.

So, you know, that was never really a concern for myself, the legal team or the family. I think when you look at the questions that were posed -- and we will find out, Lord willing, for certain when the prosecution has the chance to speak with the jurors, but I don`t think this was an issue of race with the jury.

Anybody, black, white, red, brown, you can look at what Slager did and know that it was wrong and that it was a murder. At a minimum, it was a voluntary manslaughter. There just so happened to be one juror and that`s all it takes, there was one that was not willing to convict him for whatever reason. And that`s okay. That is how the system works.

But at the end of the day, we are going to get justice. This family is standing tall. There`s a saying that if you fall on your back, as long as you can look up, you can get up. Well, I can tell you that the Scott family is up. They`re hopeful, prayerful, they`re faithful and we will see justice.

MELBER: And, briefly, you mentioned those two charges. Do you have any indication from your work over whether the jury was deadlocked over a murder charge or the lesser manslaughter charge?

BAMBERG: I do not. The inkling that I had is a juror didn`t think one of the elements of manslaughter was met, for whatever reason. Only that person knows. Bull I think here, you`re looking at a situation where you`re almost unanimous with regards to either murder or manslaughter and there was just one holdout.

MELBER: All right. Attorney and State Representative Justin Bamberg on what was a busy for you and your team -- thanks for your time.

BAMBERG: Thank you.

MELBER: Still ahead tonight, Republicans now have unilateral control over more than two dozen states but they lost one. Hold that thought.


MELBER: Statistically speaking, governors running for re-election just about always win. If you have the title of governor already and what you`re trying to do is keep that title -- well, you`re about five times more likely to win than you are to lose. Sitting governors, of course, can lose, it just doesn`t happen often. And that makes the announcement in North Carolina all the more remarkable.


GOV. PAT MCCRORY (R), NORTH CAROLINA: As Ann and I get ready for the Christmas holidays, we are reminded of how fortunate we are to live in a free country. We are also thankful for all of those who have served and protected our freedom and for those who continue to do so. You know, being the 74th governor of North Carolina has been a privilege and an honor.

But during this wonderful season, it`s also time to celebrate our democratic process and respect what I see to be the ultimate outcome of the closest North Carolina governor`s race in modern history. Despite continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process, I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken and we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper.


MELBER: A conciliatory note there from North Carolina`s Republican governor conceding that race. It is almost four weeks after the actual Election Day. Governor McCrory had at times alleged massive voter fraud. Last week, he demanded and received a recount in one heavily Democratic county.

But after teams poured over the results in that county this weekend and into today, Governor McCrory didn`t gain a single extra vote. His opponent, Democrat Roy Cooper, picked up six. Cooper is the attorney general. And as you can see, will become the governor next month.

This was writ large an unusual election year and there have been many lectures from Republicans about dealing with new realities and giving new office holder as chance to govern.

That maybe a self-serving argument in Washington, D.C., firmly a one-party town, and now it may be tested in North Carolina, a Trump red state that still rejected what many there saw as right-wing overreaches by McCrory.

The question now is whether Republicans there who still control the state legislature will actually give their new Democratic executive a chance. If you believe in the votes that have been tallied, he has certainly earned it.

Watch this space.



ALEC BALDWIN AS DONALD TRUMP: Kellyanne, I just retweeted the best tweet. I mean, wow, what a great, smart tweet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Trump, we`re in a security briefing.

BALDWIN: I know, but this could not wait. It was from a young man named Seth, he`s 16, he`s in high school and I really did retweet him. Seriously. This is real.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He really did do this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, sir, you`re the president-elect so I guess you can do whatever you want but we`d really like to fill you in on Syria.

BALDWIN: Gosh, Seth seems so cool. His Twitter bio says he wants to make America great again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is cool, sir.

BALDWIN: It also says he loves the Anaheim Ducks.


MELBER: That was the opening sketch from "SNL" this weekend, poking fun at Trump`s habit of retweeting the compliments he gets from pretty much randomly anyone on Twitter.

Now, at least one viewer didn`t take kindly to it. The president-elect found time to tweet right after midnight, quote, "Just tried watching `Saturday Night Live`, unwatchable, totally biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can`t get any worse. Sad."

Trump`s remarks offer a window into his mind, his viewing habits, and even his many petty grievances. At midnight, the president-elect was tweeting about Alec Baldwin. By 6:40 a.m., though, the next morning, he was back, threatening to punish companies for leaving the U.S., saying, "Any business that leaves U.S. soil and takes those jobs abroad can be expected to be taxed heavily, 35 percent on any goods they plan on selling to America," this includes foreign cars or A.C. units.

He added, quote, "The U.S. is open for business." Now, warning the global economy will penalize other countries is not necessarily the warmest or the most traditional way to stay open for business and also doesn`t sound like the way to endear yourself to Republicans in Congress. These are the people who would have to actually pass the laws to turn any tweet ideas into actual policy.

And it turns out, get a load of this, Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy already came out to this approach in response to the tweets today. In fact, it`s not even clear the Trump/Pence transition team itself or incoming administration supports the policy he brain stormed on Twitter. Last week, their administration cut its first major economic deal, and as you might recall, they traded billions of dollars in tax benefits just to keep on some of Carrier`s plant jobs in Indiana. Carrier still plans on moving a separate plant all the way out to Mexico.

So, will Carrier, that just hosted a Trump event last week, also be punished with this 35 percent retribution threat?

We are fully in unchartered territory here where we are seeing the soon-to- be president lay out his economic policy or issuing threats of retribution to U.S. companies on Twitter.

Joining us now is David Cay Johnston, investigative reporter and author of "The Making of Donald Trump."

What do you make of these threats? Are they real and could they be turned into federal policy?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, AUTHOR, "THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP": Well, I have a hard time imaging that a lot of the free trader Republicans are going to completely reverse course and support a 35 percent tariff that will benefit China and effectively raise prices on Americans because domestic companies will face less pressure than on pricing to increase the prices that are goods. You know, the Republicans tried this in 1930 with Smoot-Hawley tariff and it made the Great Depression worse.

MELBER: Why did the foreign impacts then affect the price of U.S. goods?

JOHNSTON: Well, if you -- this is what developing countries did and what we did at the beginning of the republic. If you put a tariff on foreign goods, it allows domestic manufacturers to charge higher prices, build up their capital and become more successful over time. But it is really a tax on people at the bottom end. It`s one of the major reasons we got the income tax in this country, the last major industrial countries to get the income tax a little over 100 years ago, was to get away from tariffs and how punitive they are of people down the income ladder.

MELBER: Where do you think he`s actually getting these ideas? In other words, you`re explaining why they don`t work very well. You`re giving the history that some of this has been tried and we`ve moved on from it. Is this the fact that his toolbox is somewhat limited because he`s kind of just brainstorming or do you have any knowledge of advisers around him that actually want to go back down this hole notwithstanding where the Republican leadership is in Congress?

JOHNSTON: Well, there are certainly people Donald is listening to, like former Ambassador Bolton who want to provoke a change here in policy. And I certainly wouldn`t argue that we should just accept the China policy that we have. But you don`t do it by tweeting. You do it in a thoughtful, diplomatic way.

The important thing to remember, Ari, about Donald is, he`s like a cub newspaper reporter. The last thing he heard is the most important thing in the world and so pay attention to who has just seen him and then watch his tweets and you`ll have a pretty good idea of who is influencing him just as he changed his tone on Obamacare after meeting with President Obama and talking about pre-existing conditions and young people under the age of 26.

MELBER: Right. And so this raises the other point, which is we hear a lot of defenses of Trump, well, this is a fancy negotiating tactic, and he`s so good at leveraging in business. And that seems like a weird defense because anyone who is good at leverage in business can follow the same tweets and same backtracking and see that Carrier actually got money, that he was a lot of tough talk but then he handed out corporate welfare.

So, I know we`re not to take too much of that seriously. But what do you make of that, that sort of folks are pretending that the best defense of him is that no one around the world is paying attention?

JOHNSTON: Well, first of all, it`s a facade that Donald is a great negotiator. There are actually professors of law who teach litigation and negotiating strategy and some of them have spoken about that Donald is not a good negotiator.

Secondly, this isn`t negotiation. This is an erratic personality that we`re going to have in the Oval Office, behaving the way he`s always behaved. He`s not deeply steeped in these issues. Donald doesn`t understand the important historical issues, including U.S. military obligations to the government and the Chinese government initially responded to this in a very thoughtful, measured way.

Now you`re seeing them ramp this up. And you can be sure they are out there talking to Pacific Rim countries and saying, hey, we`re the country of the future. You want to look to Beijing, not to Washington and that guy who thinks that tweeting is a form of diplomacy.

MELBER: David Cay Johnston, author of "The Making of Donald Trump" -- thanks for your time tonight.

JOHNSTON: Thank you, Ari.

MELBER: And still ahead, when you lose an election, the way Democrats lost this last one, a little soul searching is understandably in order. But first, the latest on a surprise win for progressives.

Stay with us.


MELBER: For months, this has been the scene in Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Thousands of people camped out to protest the construction of an oil pipeline. That`s near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Reservation. They say the pipeline would pollute their drinking water, disrupt sacred burial grounds, and that they would not budge until a new route has been announced.

It`s been a long few months for many people there, battling harsh weather, clashes with law enforcement. But then yesterday, this happened.

Yesterday, the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would not allow the pipeline to run upstream from that Standing Rock reservation, that it would look into other places to try to place the pipes. Protesters hugged, they held hands and they cheered. They celebrated that this time, this direct action worked. Their voices were heard. They won.

Or at least we can tell you they won for now. The pipeline builder is saying they are committed to that original plan, that they will complete construction of the pipeline without rerouting it and in 45 days, you know this, the U.S. will get a new president, one who says currently he supports this pipeline and he could easily try to have the decision reversed made by the U.S. army corps of engineers which is part of the government. Yesterday, celebrations more into more protests today, with demonstrators marching in blizzard conditions and gearing up for the fight that lays ahead.

And the chairman of this tribe, Dave Archambault, says he knows it`s not over but told protesters today it is time for them to go home now, that their purpose has been served. And we can tell you, he will be on "THE LAST WORD" tonight with Lawrence O`Donnell. So, you want to tune in for that if you`re interested.

Now, whether they go home or maintain their ground for now, they wait. Inauguration is 45 days away and the clock is ticking.


MELBER: It is called "Monday morning quarterbacking" for a reason. Everybody knows it`s an easier to handicap a losing team`s mistake after a game is played, but that doesn`t mean it won`t help your next game. Yet, if you think about it, when you look at the collective responses of professional Democrat since November, the operatives, the strategists, pollsters who run a good chunk of the party, there`s been very little public soul searching.

Now, some of these are actually understandable. It was a close bruising race. Clinton`s own team had many positives worth emphasizing.

She won more votes than Trump, 2.5 million more. She has the dubious historical distinction of winning the largest popular vote margin of any losing nominee. Take that Samuel Tilden. He was also a Democrat from New York, by the way.

Clinton also won more votes while serving as America`s first female major party nominee. That`s not nothing.

But top Democrats have been slow to address some of the mistakes under their own control. Maybe the FBI did hurt Clinton`s cause. But what about mistakes that Democrats can learn from on their side? They have to decide how they want to run the party in this new Trump era which is why it`s super weird, if you think about it, that there isn`t a more robust, honest public debate or more top candidates for the job of literally running the party.

The DNC chairmanship is about to become very important, but despite a giant "help wanted" sign in front of the building, it looks like nobody really big wants the job.

Howard Dean was running but he dropped out on Friday, saying he didn`t want a divisive race. Now, as a former party chair and governor, he was traditionally the highest ranking name in contention. Now, what Dean would have been stepping into an old job, the remaining candidates are looking for a promotion from Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota endorsed by leaders like Chuck Schumer, to some lesser known figures like Ray Buckley and Jamie Harrison who run state parties.

The Democratic Party chair is not just someone who raises money for the party or joins us here on TV, although they do do that. For a party out of power in this Trump era, it is a post that can shape whether the party keeps working on these little questions like should there be a few more organizers in rural Wisconsin or the big questions, like should the Obama White House have cleared the whole primary field for Hillary Clinton before voting even began? Or should the party keep backing a corporate free trade agenda while its own labor base revolts?

Many Democrats and liberals say they pride themselves on debate, on facing facts, on diversity. So, why is there so little debate about how to run the party and who should run the party and why do so few people even want to run the party?

OK. These may be some tough questions for Democrats. One loyal Clinton booster, though, is pushing them. Former conservative-turned-liberal David Brock is saying the party should conduct a formal audit on itself today to recon with what`s gone wrong.

Is there an appetite to dig deep down and figure that out? Do they see the need?

Joining me now is Christina Greer, a Fordham political scientist who studies electoral politics, identity and immigration in the U.S.


MELBER: Let`s start at the top. Why aren`t there more people applying for the job?

GREER: One, it`s a big job. We had some scandals with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and then when Donna Brazile took over, there are some issues there. And so, whoever comes in is going to have to not only clean up what has been done in these past few months, possibly years. They`re going to have to possibly do an audit about what happened in 2016 and the months and years leading up to 2016 and they also have to provide a vision for the party when a party is out of power not just in the presidency, but also in Congress by pretty significant numbers.

MELBER: It seems like there are times when parties just want to tweak, and there are times when parties hook really inward to the structure or what we used to call, the system, man.

GREER: Right.

MELBER: So, is this one of those moments in your view, or when you look at a party that as some Clinton aides have repeatedly stressed that got more votes, maybe they don`t have to blow up the whole thing, what do you think?

GREER: Well, I think, you know, there`s a certain level of arrogance within the Democratic Party, and I think I`ve been part of that arrogance, thinking that, you know, Hillary Clinton was essentially heir apparent in many ways. I mean, I think the extra 2.6 million votes show that the country was responsive to a particular portion of her message.

But we can`t forget, Bernie Sanders really made an impact. And so while so many Democrats were pointing the finger at the civil war going on in the Republican Party, I don`t think people realize with how many Democrats are not satisfied with the centrist moderate candidates that we keep putting up for the presidency, and they wanted someone who was a lot more progressive, a lot more left-leaning and somebody who looked like a big D Democrat, which Bernie Sanders in some way represented, possibly not the packaging wasn`t ideal for many Democrats, which then sort of raised the question. What happened to Martin O`Malley, who could have had a more progressive message and a package that more Democrats could have understood or appreciated.

So, We need to think about the pipeline on the local, state and national levels, why is it when it comes to the presidency, either we get people out of nowhere in Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama or the party faithful and the Clintons from `92, `96, and all the way up until the mid aught.

But also, we really need to think about, if we choose someone for the head of the DNC, what is the real vision? Are they going to sort of run after white men in the rural counties in the suburbs, the way sort of Hillary Clinton started to do? Or are they really going to double down and say, we are the party of diversity, we`re stronger together and actually show us we`re stronger together.

MELBER: Democrats have been very critical of the Trump appeals to the way America was, and "make America great" is a plagiarized slogan from Reagan.

GREER: And George Wallace.

MELBER: If you go back further.

But what does it say not that it`s the same cultural appeal, I certainly wouldn`t suggest that. But with regard to nostalgia, what does it say that Democrats are constantly talking about the Clintons. Today we`re hearing about Biden. Howard Dean had run the party before.

Do they have to worry that sometimes the implicit political mood seems to be, I love the `90s?

GREER: Yes, I think, you know, the greatest hits are the `90s, because that`s when, you know, things were pretty good for the Democrats to a certain extent.

MELBER: Right.

GREER: We had a strong president. You know, the economy was booming. But I think we also need to think about real-world economics. So, Donald Trump has tapped into something in some of the ways that Barack Obama tapped into, it`s just the opposite feeling, right?

Barack Obama really inspired people with hope and sort of this new idea in a very positive direction that was very inclusive. And sort of thinking about economics, which would be together we can rise up, sort of all boots together.

Donald Trump tapped into something as well for a large percentage of the population, it`s just, because of those people, you don`t have. And that is a powerful message that can take us to the, quote-unquote, "good old days" of the 1930s. But if we know anything about the 1930s, the only people benefitting in the 1930s were white men.

And so, that is a really important message that he`s pushing. And so, as I`ve said on this network and many others, you know, if he`s trying to dismantle the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration Act, and all of the progressive politics of LBJ, and even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, he wants to essentially erase the Democratic message and bring it back to sort of the good days --

MELBER: Right.

GREER: -- when white men were white men.

And I think that is a message that clearly resonates. It`s a message that resonates with white women as well. And so, the Democrats have their work cut out for them in many ways to try and think about how to be an inclusive party and tap into certain level of hope and excitement on the economic level but also on racialized-based as well.

MELBER: Political scientist Christina Greer, thank you. Very interesting.

GREER: Thanks, Ari.

MELBER: Appreciate it.

Up next, it turns out you can fool a lot of people if you get your hands on an American flag and a picture of President Obama. We will explain. That`s straight ahead.


MELBER: This is the website for the U.S. embassy in Ghana. It`s basically everything you`d expect to see, emergency contact info in case you get into trouble while traveling in Ghana, there`s information about voting overseas and a lengthy section about romance scams where are a big problem for the U.S. embassy in Ghana.

Now, it`s come across all these instances of scam artists striking up romantic relationships online and asking people to send their money to Ghana. It`s so prevalent that the U.S. embassy even tells you there how to be on the lookout. They warn you to be alert if, quote, "you`ve sent." Or your supposedly love interest promises to pay you back after they inherit gold or gems.

So, the U.S. embassy in Ghana knows a thing or two about con artist and they all know about fake marriage scams.

But they didn`t know fake embassies were also an issue. This is the real U.S. embassy in Accra, Ghana. It`s a prominent building with tight security in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the coal country. It`s a nice embassy.

But this run-down two-story building with the corrugated roof has been masquerading as a U.S. embassy in Ghana, it turns out, for the past decade. The people who ran it flew an American flag outside, to hung up a photo of President Obama. They put some signs that said it was a totally normal U.S. embassy. They kept strict hours, Monday, Tuesday, Friday from 7:30 a.m. until noon.

The group that run the fake embassy even advertised their services with flyers and billboards around the region. And for ten years, they managed to stay in business. How? Well, for starters, for $6,000, the U.S. government says they were issuing fraudulent obtained but legitimate U.S. visas, as well as counterfeit visas and false ID documents.

When authorities busted this operation, they found documents, 150 passports from 10 different countries, plus legitimate and counterfeit visas from the U.S. And until the bitter, bitter end, these guys are conning authorities.

Part of how they made them was while using an industrial sewing machine at a dress shop. When authorities tried to raid that dress shop, U.S. officials say a corrupt Ghanaian attorney lied to detectives, telling them they weren`t allowed to access the premises because of a separate criminal investigation on the scene.

How convenient. But there wasn`t another criminal investigation. The person just said that so the people inside could move their passport sewing machines somewhere else, hide all their fake documents.

This basically was not someone just selling fake Rolex watches in an alley. This was someone building a fake Rolex store in the center of town and operated for ten years. Wow is an understatement. Quite a story.

Now, that does it for us. Rachel will be back tomorrow.


Good evening, Lawrence.