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

McMaster out, Bolton in as National Security Adviser. TRANSCRIPT: 03/22/2018. The Rachel Maddow Show

Guests: Mark Landler, Adam Schiff

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW Date: March 22, 2018 Guest: Mark Landler, Adam Schiff

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour as well.

How was your day? Fine, fine. How was yours? Nothing much doing. Not much in the news. Kind of a quiet night.

The president fired his lead lawyer on the Russia scandal today. It seems like kind of a late date for that, but maybe it was for a very specific reason. He then unexpectedly threw $50 billion dollars of trade war tariffs at China, and then the Dow Jones fell off a cliff and the market dropped 742 points before closing.

The secretary of state said goodbye and left his job, the president then hired yet another Fox News personality to join his Russia legal team, then he hired another Fox News personality to become the new national security adviser, which means he is firing the existing national security adviser right now -- which means just in the past three weeks, this president and this White House have chewed up and spat out the communications director who was reportedly the president single most trusted aide Hope Hicks, also the president`s personal assistant, also his staff secretary, also his chief economic adviser, also the deputy White House chief of staff, also the deputy director of the FBI, and the aforementioned secretary of state who will be replaced now by the person who is currently serving as director of the CIA, which means there needs to be a new director of the CIA as well. And now, tonight, the national security advisor is out too.

And so, yes -- we`re going to need another wall soon. We actually figured out a way to make this one slightly larger, like just by kind of taking care of the margins, you know how you can make your term papers look shorter because.

The churn at this White House is absolutely without historical precedent. No administration has ever run people through the meat grinder like this one has ever. We have never ever had this kind of turnover. But in addition just the overall turnover, it really feels like something has accelerated in the last three weeks something different is going on over the last three weeks, particularly on the national security stuff, it just feels like the break lines got cut we`re screaming down the road hoping to hit something soft.

And there`s a lot to say about John Bolton former U.N. ambassador who`s going to get H.R. McMaster`s job as national security adviser, and I say he`s going to get the job, not that he`s, you know, nominated for the job or he`s designated for the job. He`s going to get it because national security adviser is not a Senate-confirmed position. There`s no process of becoming national security adviser. The president just picks you, and he gets to pick whoever he wants. That`s how we ended up with his first national security adviser Mike Flynn, even though the Justice Department was at the White House warning them about Flynn as a serious national security risk within days of the inauguration.

So, he`s picking Bolton now, he`ll get Bolton. There`s -- and there`s a lot to say about John Bolton, we`re going to get to that in just a second and we`ll talk with some people who know a little bit about what he`s been like in government in the past, why his previous government appointments have been so controversial and why this current appointment is freaking so many people out tonight.

But before we start talking about John Bolton, also consider how General H.R. McMaster is getting fired here as a national security adviser. I mentioned that that Rex Tillerson, the fired secretary of state, had his last day today. Well, Rex Tillerson gave his farewell remarks today at the State Department and he walked off into the sunset. Today was his last day. Today was the day he carried his stuff out of the State Department, but he was fired last week. Remember, he was fired last Tuesday morning.

It`s a matter of record that this was the last thing Rex Tillerson did as secretary of state before the president fired him. As his last act before he was fired, Rex Tillerson put out this very strongly worded statement condemning the government of Russia for that poisoning attack in the U.K.

That statement said in part, quote: we have full confidence in the U.K.`s investigation and its assessment that Russia was likely responsible for the nerve agent attack that took place in Salisbury, England, last week. There`s never a justification for this type of attack. The attempted murder of a private citizen on the soil of a sovereign nation and we are outraged that Russia appears to have again engaged in such behavior.

From Ukraine to Syria and now the U.K., Russia continues to be an irresponsible force of instability in the world, acting with open disregard for the sovereignty of other states and the life of their citizens. We agree that those responsible, both those who committed this crime and those who ordered it must face appropriately serious consequences.

That was the last statement put out by Rex Tillerson a secretary of state Monday night last week. That same night, he also spoke to reporters and made similarly strong remarks condemning Russia, the most strongly anti- Russia comments he made in his time at secretary of state and within hours of making those comments and releasing that statement, Rex Tillerson was fired, next morning, Rex Tillerson was fired.

Well, that was last week. Now, the national security advisor has been fired and it is a matter of record that we`ve also got the last public remarks made by national security advisor H.R. McMaster before the president fired him too.


H.R. MCMASTER, OUTGOING NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Russia is also complicit in Assad`s atrocities. The Russian government has bombed civilian areas and provided political cover for Assad`s crimes. From February 24th to February 28th, Russia conducted bombing missions every day in the eastern Ghouta and Damascus areas in Syria. Russia has also repeatedly thwarted efforts by the OPCW to hold the Assad regime accountable for using chemical weapons.

This morning, the United States, France, Germany and the United Kingdom condemned the abhorrent nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal that took place in Salisbury, United Kingdom, on March 4th. The statement made clear that we believe that Russia was responsible for this attack. If Iran and Russia do not stop enabling the regime`s atrocities and adhere to U.N. Security Council resolutions, all nations must respond more forcibly than simply issuing strong statements.

It is time to impose serious political and economic consequences on Moscow.


MADDOW: Those were the last public comments of national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The headlines last Thursday night when he gave those remarks, H.R. McMaster gives the Kremlin a double bird salute, strongest anti-Russia comments he made in his tenure as a national security adviser. By the following day, there was new urgent reporting that McMaster was about to be fired and now, he`s out.

And it may be that it is a totally weird coincident -- the coincidence that that Tillerson`s last public comments before he was fired were his strongest anti-Russia comments as secretary of state. And then days later, McMaster`s last public comments before he was fired were his strongest anti-Russia comments as national security advisor.

But both of those things have just happened in the span of less than a week and a half, and in the context of the Russia investigation around this president and in between these two firings, the president`s mysteriously deferential and complimentary call with the Russian president, where he ignored his national security advisor`s advice not to congratulate Putin on his sham election this past weekend, ignored the advice that he must condemn Russia for that poisoning attack, it may just be that all of these things happen to be having happening at the same time, they may be all unconnected. But this is all happening on a very compressed timeline, and there is a real similarity between what happened with Tillerson`s firing and with what just happened with McMaster`s firing.

And for whatever reason it just happened, we are now about to have our third national security advisor in 14 months. It`s going to be John Bolton. And John Bolton for years now has mostly just been known as another Fox News personality.

But if you`ve heard him described today and tonight as former ambassador to the United Nations, you should know that there`s an asterisk on that. He did serve in that job but he served in it as a recess appointment. The George W. Bush administration could never actually get him confirmed to that job.


REPORTER: John Bolton, derided by Senate Democrats today as the worst possible choice to represent the United States before the United Nations.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: There is no such thing as the United Nations.

REPORTER: To prove their point, Democrats played portions of a 1994 speech showing what they calls Bolton`s disdain for the U.N.

BOLTON: Again, the Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn`t make a bit of difference.

THEN-SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: It`s hard for me to know why you`d want to work at an institution that you said didn`t even exist.


MADDOW: For all the controversies of the George W. Bush administration and there were many, the George W. Bush administration trying to appoint John Bolton to a Senate-confirmed position was a -- was a bridge too far, even for that administration.


BOLTON: The point that I want to leave with you in this very brief presentation is where I started, is there is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that`s the United States when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.

Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn`t make a bit of difference.

This kind of mindless creation of the United Nations as something different than what it`s in the United States interest to do isn`t going to sell here or anywhere else. The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be because the only question -- the only question for the United States is what`s in our national interest? And if you don`t like that, I`m sorry, but that is the fact.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.


MADDOW: So pointing that guy -- appointing that guy to be the American representative to the United Nations was a hard sell even for the George W. Bush administration he came under fire for those views. Mr. Bolton also came under fire for his temperament and more specifically his temper. A woman who had worked with him years before told a public story of what happened when she outlined concerns that she had about a program she was working in overseas.

Quote: Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of the Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and generally behaving like a madman for nearly two weeks while I waited fresh direction from my company and from USAID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and with -- my wardrobe and with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian. For the record, I`m not.

As a maligned whistleblower I`ve learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interest of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.

John Bolton put me through hell. He did everything he could to intimidate malign and threatened not just me but anyone willing unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn`t just unforgivable. It was pathological.

So, this is from John Bolton`s last effort to join national federal administration.

I mean, there was so much talk at the time of Bolton`s nomination about his alleged bullying that when "The Washington Post" did a feature on the issue of bullying bosses, the lead of their feature was about the famous behavior of John Bolton. Some of the objection to Bolton as potential U.N. ambassador had to do with his temperament. Some of it had to do with this policies, like saying it wouldn`t hurt the U.N. to have stories off the New York building in which it`s headquartered.

But some of the objection him was about his temperament and his policies together.


REPORTER: In 2003, Bolton gave a now infamous speech, blasting North Korea`s leader as a tyrannical dictator and life there as a hellish nightmare. Bolton told the Senate that Hubbard approved his controversial remarks.

BOLTON: And the day of the speech after it was given, our ambassador in South Korea said to me, thanks for that speech, John. It will help us a lot out here.

REPORTER: But today, Hubbard tells NBC News Bolton has a selective memory and that Bolton was tempestuous, once yelling at him and even hanging up on him.


MADDOW: In the end, John Bolton was not able to get confirmed by the Senate during the George W. Bush administration. The president ended up getting into that ambassador job with a recess appointment while the Senate was out of session because that was the only way he could get him through. And frankly, he was widely perceived to be a disaster in that role.

He blew off the U.N. Security Council mission to Sudan. He said that China should get a permanent seat on the Human Rights Council, which sent the U.S. State Department`s scrambling to overrule him, because that was his own idea, not the U.S. government`s idea.

"The Economist" magazine at the time quoted an unnamed senior western diplomat saying, quote: if Bolton left tomorrow, progress would be possible on almost every front where it is now stalled. He has succeeded in putting almost everyone`s backs up even among some of America`s closest allies.

John Bolton managed to carve out a particular place in Republican politics and I -- you know, I hesitate to say that anybody is really and truly unique under the sun, but John Bolton has been almost a uniquely divisive figure even inside Republican politics. During the Trump transition, Bolton`s name like everybody else who works at Fox News, Bolton`s name was floated as a possible deputy secretary of state, as a possibility for sending to the Senate for confirmation to that job.

The response from Republicans in the Senate was basically, are you sure about that? That John Bolton?

John Bolton did not get picked by Trump for that deputy secretary of state job which would have required Senate confirmation. He didn`t get sent to the Senate for confirmation.

Since then though, he`s continued to circle around this White House, staying in conversation with the president offering advice on points of foreign policy like Iran and like North Korea. At the end of February, John Bolton published this opinion piece in "The Wall Street Journal".

Quote: The legal case for striking North Korea first. First, his conclusion reads, quote: in 1837, Britain unleashed pre-emptive "fire in fury" against a wooden steamboat. It`s perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current necessity posed by North Korea`s nuclear weapons by striking first.

So, as a public figure, he has been advocating that we should just go start a nuclear war with North Korea now, just go get them now. If you`re wondering tonight why your Twitter feed is filled with people who say they are scared to death by this appointment of John Bolton to be national security advisor with no Senate confirmation necessary, it probably has to do with John Bolton saying things like that and with the reputation that John Bolton has earned himself over the last couple of decades in Washington.

Joining us now is Mark Landler. He`s a White House correspondent for "The New York Times".

Mr. Landler, you and your colleagues broke this story about McMaster and Bolton tonight. I know it`s been a really busy day for you. Thanks for being here with us.


MADDOW: What can you tell us about the surprise factor here? Obviously, Mr. Bolton had been seen in and around the White House. There had been reports about difficulties and differences of opinion, differences of style between the president and his current national security adviser, Mr. McMaster. Did all parties involved know that this was going to happen now?

LANDLER: Well, you know, like with many things involving President Trump, the way it unfolded was kind of shocking, but the underlying reality was not surprising. H.R. McMaster, as you said, has been on thin ice with the president. For a long time, newspapers and television channels have forecasted in his departure regularly.

So, the fact that he was leaving was not a surprise. The fact that this happened in as sudden away as it did I think caught certainly John Bolton off-guard. He acknowledged when he went on Fox TV which was barely an hour after President Trump tweeted that the reality of this hadn`t really sunk in.

So, you know, this is a guy who`d been circling around the White House. There been a lot of talk of him being on very short lists, but I don`t think anyone expected it to unfold quite the abrupt way it did. And, you know, that`s just in keeping with President Trump`s style of always keeping people off-guard and always acting in this fairly impulsive way.

MADDOW: In your reporting tonight at "The Times", you note that one of the reasons the White House is at least suggesting that this might have happened now is because the president is eager to fill out his national security team before his meeting with North Korea`s Kim Jong-un. It`s -- because of Bolton`s publicly stated positions on North Korea, he`s on the record saying diplomacy is a bad idea, it won`t work, it`s time to end the North Korea regime, we should strike first, we should essentially just go bomb them -- how does him as national security adviser change the equation for that meeting, for North Korea in general?

LANDLER: Well, you know, there`s an obvious contradiction in what the president is doing here. He`s agreed to this, you know, highly risky encounter with Kim Jong-un and yet to get ready for that encounter, he`s put in place not one but two people who have expressed really hawkish views on North Korea. As you say, John Bolton has talked about a pre-emptive military strike, but Mike Pompeo prior to John Bolton`s joining the team, was probably the most openly vocal about the need for regime change in North Korea.

So, you now have the two principal foreign policy advisors of the president are people who are on the record talking against engagement and for military action so it`s going to be very interesting to watch how these two men advise the president and help him get ready for this meeting.

MADDOW: Tillerson is out. McMaster is out very shortly thereafter. John Kelly is reported is one of the people who the president has sort of I think enjoyed publicly toying with as to whether or not he`s going to get rid of him in terms of the influences on the president, the people who have his ear who are most influential with him when it comes to national security matters, the sort of odd figure in the midst of all those departures and threatened departures is his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and there`s been a lot of palace intrigue reporting as to how he fits in among the national security adviser, National Security Council and the secretary of state`s responsibilities.

He obviously is still standing here but without a full security clearance and with a lot of publicly reported controversy about his role.

Do we have any sense about Mr. Kushner`s role at this point in the administration going forward and whether he had anything to do with this firing?

LANDLER: Well, you know, Jared Kushner as you say having lost his security clearance doesn`t have access to some of the most sensitive intelligence which would allow him to take part in you know the really most sense of national security deliberations. He`s still involved in trying to put together a Middle East peace plan and the White House I think still intends to table that proposal at some point, despite very, very bad conditions in the Middle East.

He`s involved in dealing with Mexico. He went down to Mexico recently and I think he`s trying to work to smooth out a relationship that has obviously been extremely contentious because of President Trump`s repeated promises to build a wall so I think it`s going to be interesting to watch whether he can carve out a place with very powerful new personalities in the mix.

Mike Pompeo is going to be aggressive. He has the president`s ear. He gets along well with the president. John Bolton is an extremely outspoken figure, someone who goes on television, writes regularly to advocate for his views. These are arguably bigger personalities, stronger voices than Jared Kushner was dealing with before. So, we`ll see how he fits in.

I`d only mentioned one more figure who I think is going to be crucial in the coming weeks and that is the Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Along with Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster, Mattis was seen as a potential moderating force on President Trump. Now you have to much more hawkish figures in the other two roles of what had been this triumvirate, so it will be interesting to see whether Jim Mattis finds himself isolated, you know, figures out his role in this new -- in this new landscape.

MADDOW: Yes. Jim Mattis is seen as particularly close to Rex Tillerson. It was a sort of pointed logistical matter that Mr. Mattis, General Mattis was on his way to Afghanistan when the Tillerson surprise firing came down last week.

Mark Landler, White House correspondent on "The New York Times" -- congratulations on this scoop today. Thank you for joining us tonight. I really appreciate it.

LANDLER: Thanks, Rachel. Thank you.

MADDOW: All right. Much more come tonight. We`re going to be talking actually with a veteran of the National Security Council who knows John Bolton and I think can give us a little more insight into why people are so wigged out about this appointment of Bolton tonight.

Also, it is -- should not be and we should not allow this new news to undercut the other big shake-up at the White House today in the president`s legal team, which is one that I think is very, very, very significant. That`s ahead tonight. Stay with us.


MADDOW: At, their longtime national security correspondent is the very good Fred Kaplan. If you were looking for a representative sample of the response in the national security world to the breaking news tonight that H.R. McMaster has been fired as national security advisor to be replaced by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, well, Fred Kaplan`s take at serves pretty well, I think.

Kaplan`s reaction to this news tonight is this, quote: it`s time to panic now. John Bolton`s rise to power puts us on a path to war, and since Trump appointed him while knowing Bolton`s views, it means Trump wants to be on that path.

I saw that actually and wondered if Mr. Kaplan might be taking this sort of worse than your average bear, but then I saw that his take was retweeted by Mike McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia and former senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council, that got me thinking.

Ambassador McFaul joins us now live.

Mr. McFaul, thank you very much for being here. It`s nice to see you.

MIKE MCFAUL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: Glad we`re reading the same Twitter feed, Rachel.

MADDOW: Well, I have to -- I have to ask you if a retweet in this instance from you is an endorsement or not? Are you in panic mode about this announcement for national security adviser?

MCFAUL: Well, I`m definitely concerned. Whether we need to panic is another matter, and I want to underscore that I`m one of those people that have supported some of Trump`s other administration official appointments on the national security team, right? I was out in a way that I was criticized by many for supporting, for instance, Secretary Mattis. I was a big fan of HR. McMaster.

So, this is a different kind of appointment and I think Fred makes a really important point. First, he has extreme views when it comes to Iran and North Korea, and that he advocates the use of military force both for disarmament and regime change. But the second point that Fred makes which I totally agree with is unlike some of the other appointments, these views are known, they are known by the president, so he is choosing this national security adviser knowing what he believes in and what he believes in is very scary.

MADDOW: When John Bolton was appointed or nominated to be U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, that was an immensely controversial decision by President Bush and it ultimately resulted in Mr. Bolton only being able to get that appointment as a recess appointment. He couldn`t get through the Senate. There were concerns not only about his hawkishness and his anti-U.N. views, which is awkward for U.N. ambassador.


MADDOW: But there are also concerns about his temperament and his temper and his behavior toward his coworkers. One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you about that tonight is just because you`ve served at the National Security Council. National security adviser heads that body, and advises the president in a very intimate way.

Do you have concerns about that as well for, Mr. Bolton?

MCFAUL: I do, because on the one -- there`s the one set of concerns which are about his views. But then second, the job of the national security adviser is to bring together the interagency to kind of moderate the policy debate to sit down there in the White House Situation Room and have the secretary of defense on one side, secretary of state on the other side, the vice president there and to have a free and fair deliberative process about policy.

And there`s just nothing in his background that I know of so far that that suggests that that is the kind of temperament that he has. And you don`t need to take my word for it, he had this reputation among some very senior people within the Bush administration themselves, right? Those are some of his biggest critics. So, I don`t think he`s going to be very good at running that process.

And he`s not supposed to have his own views as a national security adviser. Remember he`s supposed to be the mediator of these different views. You just need to start reading a few of his op-eds and is you know appearances over on Fox to know that he has very strong views. And so, I don`t think he`s a good fit for that particular job.

MADDOW: One last question for you. On the Russia factor here, it may absolutely be a coincidence, it may just be that all these things are happening in the world and in the White House at the same time, but I could not help but notice but that the last thing, the last statement put out by Rex Tillerson as secretary of state before he was fired was a very strong statement about Russia and that poisoning in the U.K.

Similarly with Mr. McMaster, his last public comments as national security advisor were strong criticism of Russia with regard to that incident. In "The New York Times" reporting on McMaster`s firing tonight, they say that the first public view of the tensions between President Trump and Mr. McMaster were after General McMaster last month said at a security conference in Munich, which you attended that the evidence of Russian interference in the presidential election was beyond dispute. That was the first time we saw the president take a shot at H.R. McMaster on Twitter and then ultimately he fired him after these last remarks.

Do you -- and I wanted to know what you make of that, whether you think those things might just all just be coincidental and timing or whether those things are related.

MCFAUL: I don`t know, obviously. I did note the pattern. And the real question that I have in my mind is why is President Trump firing H.R. McMaster at this time? Did he do something with respect to policy such on Russia that they disagree with or is it just about just body language and chemistry that the president talks about so much? He just didn`t like the guy. He feels more comfortable with John Bolton.

We don`t know that, but we should know that because it is extraordinary that he is replacing somebody that I have a lot of respect for, H.R. McMaster after just a few months on the job, why is he doing that now? Is it related to policy or personality? What does it mean for the future that he`s chosen Bolton now? I guess, we`ll have to just wait and see, but I`m nervous about it. I think it`s a bad choice.

MADDOW: Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia -- thank you for your time tonight. It`s a -- it`s a big night. Thanks for making time to be with us.

MCFAUL: Thanks for having me.

MADDOW: All right. Still more to come on this -- on this crazy news night. The other, other, other story with a claim to a headline of the day. That`s next. Stay with us.


MADDOW: On July 24th, 1987, a young woman in Washington, D.C. filed a police complaint against a sitting U.S. senator, against Senator Brock Adams of Washington state. The woman was 24 years old at the time. Her family had been friends with the senator for years.

But this young woman told police and her complaint that while she`d been staying at the senators home, he drugged her and attacked her. She said he gave her a glass of wine, which she believes had some sort of drug in it. She told police she woke up without her clothes on with, the senator, quote, fondling her.

So, she went to the police and filed a report and apparently the officer who investigated this woman`s claims, he requested a warrant for the senator`s arrest. But the senator was not arrested.

The U.S. attorney in D.C. at the time, the U.S. attorney overseeing this case, a local prosecutor, said no, decided not to file charges. By the time the public learned about this police report filed by this young woman, that prosecutor has left office, but he took time to publicly defend his decision to drop the case. He said publicly, quote: there was a unanimous decision that this matter had no merit. He said it had absolutely no merit whatsoever.

There`s kind of an interesting decision not just that the U.S. attorney had to decline to file charges in this case or to allow for an arrest warrant, even though the officer investigating had asked for the warrant. It was also interesting -- it was an interesting decision that the prosecutor went so far as to publicly undercut the accuser, to go public with these assertions that she had no credibility and neither did this accusation, that she had filed with the police but that`s what the prosecutor decided to do.

And so, the accused senator, Brock Adams, Democrat of Washington state, he got to stay in office. But the case kind of lingered in the back of everybody`s mind and for whatever reason, that former U.S. attorney, that prosecutor who decided not to go forward with the case, he decided he wasn`t going to let go of the matter. In fact, years later, in 1991, that same U.S. attorney was still speaking out about the case, still coming out to say that these accusations had no merit, still defending the senator`s reputation.

The prosecutor went to a fundraiser for that senator and spoke on his behalf. He brought up that case yet again. He told the crowd at the senator`s fundraiser, quote: there was absolutely no merit whatsoever, none, to that case.

The prosecutor at that fundraiser said, quote: this matter has gotten to a point where it`s abundantly clear that it`s more than unfair what is happening to the senator, even though that prosecutor refused to believe any of it, and refused the police officers request for a warrant in that case, the senator`s hometown newspaper decided they were going to investigate the matter.

And three years later, as that senator was running for re-election, running for another term in the Senate in the 1992, "The Seattle Times" went public with the findings of their investigation, and this was the headline. Eight more women accused Senator Adams, allegations of two decades of sexual harassment abuse and a rape.

Among the eight women "The Seattle Times" interviewed was a former Democratic Party activist who said she suspected that the senator had drugged her too. Quote: as she objected she says, he forced her to the couch and raped her. She says he left immediately but not before throwing $200 on a table to pay her way to a Democratic function.

"The Seattle Times" also interviewed an accuser who said she was, quote, given a drink by Senator Adams that appeared to be champagne to which a red liquid had been added. "The Seattle Times" reported that the woman said she then blacked out and regained consciousness later to find Senator Adams removing her clothes. That report in "The Seattle Times", that`s how Brock Adams became a one-term senator from the state of Washington. He dropped out of the race the day after that "Seattle Times" report was published.

And Patty Murray ran for and won his seat. Patty Murray still has that seat. But, you know, the prosecutor -- the prosecutor who a few years earlier had decide to prosecute, decide to look into that initial case from that initial police report in 1987, going so far as to publicly denounce the accuser and bolster that senator, even fundraising for him on the basis of that bad accusation made against him by that woman with no credibility, that prosecutor had a next chapter in his life too. He went on to become a TV personality, specifically on the Fox News Channel where his specialty has been applying a vaguely legal sounding seriousness to his TV pundit claims.

His real heyday was the Bill Clinton Monica Lewinsky scandal. In the first month after the Lewinsky scandal was made public, he and his wife who was also his law partner they were quoted on or appeared on television over times in the span of one month and his claims about the Lewinsky scandal again vaguely legal sounding, but also a little bit nutty. He claimed but never provided any evidence that he and his wife and members of Congress had had private detectives sicced on them by the president and his family. He leaked to a newspaper word that a Secret Service agent had caught the president and Monica Lewinsky in a compromising position, walked in on him in flagrante. There`s no evidence that that ever happened.

Despite having said a lot of stuff that was not true, he definitely proved his TV worth in that Lewinsky scandal and that earned him basically a permanent place on Fox. And so now, he pops up whenever there`s another scandal, particularly if it relates to a Clinton.

After the attack in Benghazi and Republicans were going after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he said that he had access to secret evidence that showed that the Benghazi attack was a giant cover-up and it would all soon be revealed. During the Trump Clinton presidential election, he provided great comfort to Trump supporters in the Trump campaign by insisting that once again he had secret information that they didn`t need to worry that there was any chance Hillary Clinton ruined the election because he knew for a fact that she was going to be arrested any day now in the middle of a campaign.

By the time the election actually happened, he knew she was going to be in jail, he knew. And he said it in a way that sounded very legal, even though it didn`t turn out to be true.

His name is Joe diGenova and the president has just asked Mr. diGenova to join his Russia legal defense team, apparently because he likes what he`s been seeing of him on TV lately.


JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. PROSECUTOR: What you have now unfolding inside the FBI and the Department of Justice under Obama is a brazen plot to do two things to exonerate Hillary Clinton because of an animus toward Donald Trump. And then if she lost, to frame the incoming president for either a criminal act or impeachment.

Comey sold his soul to the devil. They conspired to exonerate, improperly and politically, Hillary Clinton and also if she lost, to frame the incoming president of the United States with a false crime.

Make no mistake about it, a group of FBI and DOJ people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime.

It wasn`t the Russians who corrupted the presidential election. It was the American officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI.


MADDOW: The person sitting next to Joe diGenova on that last clip there is his wife and law partner. Her name is Victoria Toensing. We learned tonight just as the McMaster and John Bolton news was breaking, that the president is not just bringing on Joe diGenova to his Russia legal team, he`s also hired Victoria Toensing.

So, he`s hired -- the president has hired both husband and wife to now work for the president on his Russia legal defense. Now, this does not appear to have been the president`s decision alone. He appears to have been supportive in this decision by his other as-seen-on-TV lawyer Jay Sekulow.

Now, Jay Sekulow himself was a slightly odd choice for the president`s legal team. He comes from the televangelists wing of conservative activism and direct mail fundraising, which means that he`s very well paid and very well groomed and he`s used to talking on TV, but he`s not exactly a subject matter expert on defending the president or on the Russia scandal. Remember around the Trump Tower meeting controversy, a lot of discussion about Russian sanctions in the Magnitsky Act, right? This is a central idea to the whole scandal surrounding the president sanctions on Russia because of the Magnitsky Act. Magnitsky. Magnitsky. Magnitsky Act, you know it, right?


JAY SEKULOW, TRUMP LAWYER: The discussions involved the Majinski (ph) Act. What was discussed at the meeting actually ended up being more about the Majinski Act. The same lawyer that has the Russia affiliation was down in Washington pitching the Majinski Act repeal. The Majinski Act. The discussion was about the Majinski Act. Could have been about the Majinski Act. Again, the conversation was on the Majinski Act.


MADDOW: There is no Majinski Act.

"Daily Beast" reports today that that lawyer Jay Sekulow was essentially leading the president`s legal defense. He`s running its operations out of the offices of his conservative activist group. He`s now been joined on the president`s Russia legal team by his friends from the Fox News Channel, this husband-and-wife Fox News TV lawyer team, just in case what president -- the president needs for his defense in the biggest national security scandal to ever loom over any presidency is the Brock Adams/Benghazi/deep state/locker up/Uranium One specialist, or two of them, or three of them.

As this shift came into focus today the president`s not made for TV lawyer John Dowd quit today. If you want to know how not made for TV John Dowd is, consider that the most famous piece of videotape involving him on TV is him flipping off and swearing at a TV camera outside a case he just lost for a Wall Street guy. Hello.

The departure of John Dowd today is the second time the president has fired his top personal lawyer on the Russia scandal. The first lead lawyer he fired was Marc Kasowitz. Remember him? Amid all this churn inside the White House, there are now some reports that Marc Kasowitz might actually be coming back, which would be amazing.

When Kasowitz was first appointed to lead the president`s Russia legal team, the very first statement he put out in that capacity described himself in the first line of that statement as the predisent`s personal lawyer, literally, the first line of the first statement on the first day he was the president`s lawyer, misspelled the word "president".

Statement also contained this line which I`ve memorized. It is now established that there the president was not being investigated for colluding with thee or attempting to obstruct. What?

That there the problem if you don`t believe me, you should, he`s the predisent`s lawyer. That in auspicious, incoherent start was followed quickly by the news that for some reason, Mr. Kasowitz was going to try to lead the president`s Russia legal defense without obtaining a security clearance himself. No access to classified materials in a national security scandal.

This led to questions about why Marc Kasowitz might not be able to get a security clearance maybe, and that led to a bizarre incident in which Mark Kasowitz, the president`s lead lawyer on this scandal started threatening and swearing at random strangers who emailed him about his new job. Kind of seemed like the stress was getting to him.

Frankly, it created stress even in the news media. How exactly do you report that the president`s lawyer is randomly emailing strangers in the middle of the night, saying watch your back, dude, rhymes with ditch.

One week after that happened, Marc Kasowitz was gone. And now, the guy who replaced him, John Dowd, he`s gone, too. And maybe Kasowitz will keep representing the president against various women who have accused him of sexual harassment, defamation and related matters, which is what he`s been doing since he left the Russia team. Maybe Marc Kasowitz will come back to the Russia team, in which case that security clearance question about him is going to become relevant all over again.

But it is also worth remembering that part of the reason the president has not been able to put together an A-list or even B-list or C-list legal team thus far on the Russia matter is reportedly because no top-drawer A-list Republican lawyer in Washington, D.C. wants to work on a even a presidential defense team if he or she has to do so alongside these hairdo mix swearword lawyers that the president likes, these guys with the pinky rings and the big air and the shoulder pads and the swearing and the flipping people off and can`t spell don`t care.

I mean, that may be the president`s style but that`s not the style of most really good lawyers who might put on an excellent defense for a U.S. president charged with a very serious national security related crime.

So, John Dowd, president`s lead Russia lawyer out as of today. Two more conspiracy theory TV lawyers are in instead and Mister watch your back F- bomb guy may be back in the mix as well.

Gabe Sherman at "Vanity Fair" cites for sources tonight saying that what set off this big shake-up and the president`s legal defense is the president going through the roof about Robert Mueller`s latest actions. Robert Mueller and his prosecutors in the special counsel`s office subpoenaing Trump`s business records from the Trump Organization apparently set the president off in this new tizzy of changes.

Maybe, this is the kind of team he thinks he needs to fight the fight with Mueller`s prosecutors, but if we are being honest here, let`s get real. What he`s putting together is not the kind of team you put together to mount a legal defense for a president. Or in fact, to do any serious legal work at all. It appears that that part is over.

What the president is putting together is the kind of team a guy like him might put together to run a P.R. operation on TV explaining the president`s actions. I mean, as hilarious as the president`s D-list lineup of lawyers is starting to look, I`m pretty sure they`re not actually there to do legal work. Him putting these people in place makes it seem like he is going to try to end this by some other means and they are going to be the team that explains it on Fox News.


MADDOW: On the same day that the president fired yet another national security adviser and the lead lawyer on his Russia defense team and the Dow dropped over 700 points on fears of a president inspired trade war with China, NBC is also now reporting that the president is thinking not just a firing his chief of staff John Kelly, but he`s thinking of firing him and then not replacing him. The president has, quote, mused to close associates about running the West Wing as he did his business empire, essentially serving as his own chief of staff. It sounds like a great idea. Why did any other president need a chief of staff anyway? They could have all just been like Trump.

Tonight, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee had this reaction. Quote: It`s hard to escape the disquieting conclusion that the mass exodus of the adults from this administration is putting our nation`s national security at risk. Ambassador Bolton`s hawkish and conspiratorial thinking will only make matters dangerously worse.

Joining us now is that top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff.

Congressman, thank you for being here tonight on a very busy evening.


MADDOW: Let me just get your top-line reaction to this latest round of churn at the top level of the administration.

SCHIFF: Well, I think Bolton is not only a bad choice it`s honestly difficult to consider a worse choice. This is someone who`s likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president towards belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his is love of conspiracy theories.

And I`ll you know just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration. So, you add that kind of thinking to Joe diGenova and you have another big dose of unreality in the White House.

So, the Bolton appointment really scares me on Iran, on North Korea, on feeding this kind of conspiracy thinking about the president. But the firing of Dowd also ought to alarm all of us because it`s yet another signal that he intends to have a much more aggressive approach to Bob Mueller and we`re I think a step closer to a potential firing of Bob Mueller.

MADDOW: I mentioned a moment ago that I look at the way the president has changed his legal team with the addition of Mr. diGenova and Ms. Toensing, his wife, with removal of John Dowd today and with the president`s recent statements about the inquiry, and I feel like to me, the president is no longer -- no longer seems to be working on a legal strategy, seems more to be looking at a legal communication strategy, or a PR strategy and that therefore it seems to me like he thinks he may be able to end this in the court of politics, rather than by going through legal processes.

It sounds to me from what you just said that you might share that worry.

SCHIFF: I do share that worry. I also share the concern that the president`s world now is confined to watching Fox News, to believing what he sees on Fox News, but also believing that Fox News isn`t the only repository of talent to fill his administration.

And apart from his insular existence in the Oval Office, Fox is his whole world. But these folks who are now joining the administration I think are going to add a really dangerous new element and they just might persuade him that the best approach to Bob Mueller is to try to shut it down, to have a political strategy of communicating to Congress in the country why he`s justified in shutting it down.

And that will bring on a real crisis in the country that will I think bring us to a grinding halt. So, it`s a dangerous turn of events.

MADDOW: Congressman Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee -- appreciate your time tonight, sir. Thank you for being with us.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.


MADDOW: So, we have one national security advisor out. We have one new national security adviser in who seems to be scaring people a little bit if tonight`s reactions that we`ve seen here are anything to go by. We have Trump -- the lead Trump lawyer in the Russia probe handing it as notice. We have a new Trump lawyer from Fox TV appointed to the president`s Russia legal team.

Somebody pulled my leg, is this Friday? This kind of feels like a Friday. I don`t know what`s going to happen tomorrow.

We`ll see you again tomorrow.


Good evening, Lawrence.