The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Transcript 11/30/2016

Guests: Norman Eisen, David Cay Johnston, Barney Frank, Jill Stein, Tayyib Rashid

Show: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL Date: November 30, 2016 Guest: Norman Eisen, David Cay Johnston, Barney Frank, Jill Stein, Tayyib Rashid RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: That does it for us tonight, we will see you again tomorrow, now it`s time for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell, good evening, Lawrence.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, talking about a less suspenseful outcome.

Jill Stein is going to join us tonight with her update on the recount efforts and what might be possible there.

MADDOW: And I don`t know about -- this is -- the lack of suspense there, I`m on the edge of my seat there.

O`DONNELL: OK, all right --

MADDOW: Thank you, Lawrence --

O`DONNNELL: Anything is possible --


Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: We`ll also ask Jill Stein if she still thinks that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

And Barney Frank will join us tonight with his warnings about what we as consumers, especially financial services consumers can expect from the Trump administration.

But first, the government was not supposed to go crazy until January 20th. But it`s already happened.


TREVOR NOAH, COMEDIAN & TELEVISION HOST: Breaking news from the only place we get breaking news anymore, Donald Trump`s Twitter.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tweeting that he is going to be separating himself and "leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Him not actively running the company is like the minimum step.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, who will run his companies once that process is complete?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That -- I mean, that all be worked out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Having your family involved or step in for you, he is not removing a conflict. Many people would argue it`s a greater conflict.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it fair to ask the question at this point whatever happened to populist Donald Trump?

LESTER HOLT, JOURNALIST: He is choosing Washington D.C. and Wall Street insiders to stack his team.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Steve Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary and Wilbur Ross for Commerce. The question becomes is this draining the swamp?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, sometimes, you`ve got to go and get the folks who know how the system works --

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: They`re basically defending the very stuff that Trump riled against.


FMR. REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASS.: This is probably the greatest bait and switch since Trump University.


O`DONNELL: Well, it is happening, and it`s happening way faster than we expected it to happen.

This wasn`t supposed to happen until January 20th. The government wasn`t supposed to go crazy until Donald Trump became president of the United States.

Most people around the world believed that that would be the first day, the first day that the American government officially went crazy.

But it`s already happened, it happened this morning at 9:55 a.m. That is when an obscure but very important and always sober government office started drunk-tweeting. Tweeting that was provoked by another round of tweeting at dawn by Donald Trump.

And for once, for once, the Trump tweeting was actually about something important, something really important.

At 6:39 a.m., the president-elect of the United States of America tweeted, "I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on December 15 to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my" -- and then it took him five minutes to finish that sentence in his next tweet at 6:44 a.m.

When he added, "my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to make America great again.

While I am not mandated to" -- and then it took him ten minutes, possibly in consultation with a lawyer to finish that sentence in a tweet at 6:54 a.m., saying, "do this under the law, I feel it is visually important as president to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses."

After another five minutes, he then tweeted, "hence, legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations.

The presidency is a far more important task." Now, the biggest indicator that Donald Trump had help with these tweets is of course, the word "hence", which he actually used correctly in that tweet.

Donald Trump`s conflicts of interest as president have been a major subject of controversy in the weeks since the election.

And this is the very first time that Donald Trump has indicated that he shares some concern about that.

But he made it clear he is only concerned about the way it looks. Hence, the very peculiar phrasing, "I feel it is visually important". "I feel it is visually important as president to in no way have a conflict of interest."

Visually important, not very important, just visually important -- the image. It`s all about the image with Donald Trump.

Nothing in those tweets indicated what Donald Trump actually plans to do about his conflicts of interest. No sane person could come away from those tweets, thinking, oh, well, now, now we know something more about what Donald Trump is actually going to do about his conflicts of interest.

Didn`t know more after reading those tweets than we did before. Donald Trump woke up this morning and started tweeting.

And that is why what happened three hours later at 9:55 a.m. is the most shocking thing we have seen in government at least since Twitter was invented.

And that is why we are now worried, we should all be worried about Walter Shaub Jr. -- Walter who? Exactly.

That`s my point. No one had any idea who Walter Shaub Jr. was before 9:55 a.m. today. And we`re not supposed to know who he is.

I didn`t know who he is until today because he is supposed to be a faceless bureaucrat in a zero visibility job that is a very important job.

Walter Shaub Jr. is charged with nothing less than keeping the government of the United States of America honest.

That`s his job. He is the director of the Office of Government Ethics. And this is his face. This is the first time I have seen his face.

I used to know who the director of the Office of Government Ethics was when I worked in government.

No one outside of government has any idea who holds that very important job of keeping the government honest.

That job didn`t even exist until 1978. There was no Office of Government Ethics until then.

And government ethics prior to 1978 were a horrible mess throughout our history with unknown amounts of conflict of interest.

The Office of Government Ethics has always been handled quietly, effectively, and with no drama.

And certainly never a hint of partisanship until today, or the slightest hint of a sense of humor until today.

At 9:55 a.m., the appropriately boring Twitter feed of the Office of Government Ethics suddenly exploded with seven simultaneous tweets addressed directly to Donald Trump.

In response to his early morning tweets. First one, "bravo! Only way to resolve these conflicts of interest is to divest. Good call!"

The Office of Government Ethics has never said bravo to anyone ever. It`s not a bravo kind of place.

And then came "brilliant! Divestiture is good for you, very good for America." Saying that right to Donald Trump.

The Office of Government Ethics has never called anyone brilliant ever. These are the tweets you would expect to read if President Trump was already in office and his new appointee for running the Office of Government Ethics was tweeting these things to him.

This is what we would expect to get if Sarah Palin was running the Office of Government Ethics for Donald Trump.

And this was just the tip of the iceberg. It kept going, another one, including another bravo. "OEG applauds, the total divestiture decision. Bravo!"

OEG -- OGE was going crazy over something Donald Trump never said. He never said divestiture.

Divestiture means selling his business, getting out completely, owning none of it. And then came this one.

"We can`t repeat enough how good this total divestiture will be. Then as we discussed with your council, divestiture is the way to resolve these conflicts.

And then OGE is delighted that you`ve decided to divest your businesses -- right decision!" And then this one.

"This aligns with the OGE opinion that POTUS should act as if 18 USC 208 applies." Seven absolutely crazy, false tweets, completely untrue tweets blasted out by what was formally the most sane, calm office in government.

And OGE wasn`t done. Two minutes later came two more tweets directly to Donald Trump.

"This divestiture does what handing over control could never have done." What divestiture? Donald Trump didn`t even hint he was going to divest anything in his tweets.

And then the final one directly to Donald Trump. "We told your council we`d sing your praises if you divested, we meant it."

The Office of Government Ethics has never sang anyone`s praises ever, never. They`re not in the praise singing business.

They are supposed to be giving guidance and in effect very stern orders to federal employees about how to avoid conflicts of interest and other ethical issues.

We asked Walter Shaub Jr. to explain himself here tonight. We never got a reply to our invitation. We asked anyone working at the Office of Government and Ethics -- Government and Ethics in any capacity to come and explain this here tonight, and we got no response.

"Washington Post" got no response from them all day. Anyone there with the same questions that we have presumably.

Seth Jaffe(ph), who is a spokesperson for the Office of Government Ethics issued a written statement late in the day in a desperate attempt to explain the inexplicable tweets.

He said, "like everyone else we were excited this morning to read the president-elect`s Twitter feed indicating that he wants to be free of conflicts of interest. We don`t know the details of their plan, but we are willing and eager to help them with it.

The tweets that OGE posted today were responding only to the public statement that the president-elect made on his Twitter feed about his plans regarding conflicts of interest."

And so in that statement, the Office of Government Ethics admitted that it went insane this morning. Insane.

In that reaction to Donald Trump`s tweets that said nothing about divestiture. They went absolutely crazy praising and endorsing Donald Trump`s plan to deal with his conflicts of interest.

And the last line of the OGE`s written statement this afternoon says, "OGE is nonpartisan and does not endorse any individual."

And that sentence had been true until 9:55 a.m. when it repeatedly said bravo directly to Donald Trump.

When it repeatedly endorsed Donald Trump and his non-existent plan to deal with his conflicts of interest.

Walter Shaub Jr. was appointed to his job by President Obama. Walter Shaub Jr. is a lawyer who has worked in various capacities in government through most of his career.

He apparently wants to stay in his job in a Trump administration or maybe get a better job, a bigger job.

Maybe one of those jobs where you get to have face time with the president. And say bravo face-to-face.

That would be a logical explanation for why those tweets praising Donald Trump came flying out of OGE this morning.

But in the age of Trump, I don`t know. I`m not sure what logic has to do with anything. Crazy just might explain a lot more than logic does.

Joining us now is Norman Eisen. He served as former special counsel and special assistant to President Obama.

Also with us, David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and columnist with "The Daily Beast".

He is the author of "The Making of Donald Trump". Norman Eisen, Ambassador Eisen, you`re a former ambassador also.

You worked on these ethical issues within the Obama administration. President Obama himself took steps beyond what has traditionally been done by presidents in his situation.

Describe what President Obama did and what you would expect someone in Donald Trump`s position to have to do.

NORMAN EISEN, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC: You know, well, President Obama started with the baseline of the government ethics laws and rules.

And he went over and above that, Lawrence, in establishing additional rules to limit conflicts of interest by lobbyists and also by anybody else entering the administration.

First time in history people coming into an administration, what we call the reverse revolving door had tough rules and then tough rules for people leaving.

A lifetime ban on lobbying the Obama administration, for example. And he complimented that, Lawrence, with tough transparency.

Administrations used to fight for years in the courts to keep out a handful of White House visitor records.

President Obama has put millions of them on the internet, so everybody can see who comes and goes.

So, you have the combination of tough rules, tough transparency, and great tone at the top. That`s why Democrats and Republicans alike agree President Obama has had the most scandal-free administration in modern history.

I was privileged to help him set up that system. If President-elect Trump is serious about his claim to drain the swamp, he`s got to take those same tough rules.

And the same tough transparency standards, but he is not doing it. We already know he has a code of conduct for his transition.

He lets the lobbyists deregister and they can walk right in the door, an immediate lobbying immunity bask.

He cut down President Obama`s limit in his transition. A year-long lobbying probation to a mere six months.

And as for transparency, my goodness, we`re still waiting to see his tax records. How can we expect him to be transparent?

If he really wants to drain the swamp, why is he filling the swamp with these billionaire alligators and the bilge water of big money?

So, he`s got to do campaign finance reform. He`s got to think about his appointments, it`s not promising.

O`DONNELL: David Cay Johnston, I`m sure when you read Donald Trump`s tweets this morning about what he plans to do --


O`DONNELL: You read them as no plan whatsoever. There was nothing revealed in there about what he plans to do.

JOHNSTON: Well, no, but in many ways, this is classic Donald Trump and it`s a good sign -- a good indicator of what we`re going to see.

First of all, he`s compromised the Office of Ethics the same way that he compromised the division of gaming enforcement in New Jersey which recommended him for a casino license when he never should have been given one.

Secondly, he has made us now think he is going to divest when all he talked about was operations.

And even if he were to divest, and there are ways he could do this. Through a -- trust for example and other vehicles, it doesn`t fix the problem at all.

Because if his children still are running the business, what difference is there between bribing his children and bribing Donald Trump?

And given Donald`s history, whenever the issue arises, do you pay workers what they`re due? Do you pay vendors what they`re due?

Do you return money to people who invested in a bad deal with you? Donald Trump goes for the money.

So, there is no reason for us to trust him. And when he held this press conference on the 15th, I hope reporters say are you going to show us all the legal documents? Are you going to show us the prices that are paid, the interest rates if there is financing?

And are you going to list every single item and then tell us what happens with the revenue from those items?

O`DONNELL: Ambassador Eisen, I`d like to get your view of the 60-year lease that Donald Trump holds on the old post office building in Washington.

And in that lease very specifically says it cannot be held. That lease cannot be held by someone who has a government office as Donald Trump will on January 20th. What happens to that lease?

EISEN: Lawrence, the lease will be in breach the moment that he takes office. It`s an example of why he needs to do a true blind trust.

How can we trust him to drain the swamp if he himself has the most profound conflicts and legal problems in the entire administration?

So, what he needs --

JOHNSTON: Ambassador, let me -- let -- ambassador?


JOHNSTON: Ambassador, let me ask you something, though. Since, this is not stocks and bonds where you can, you know, sell the apple and buy ExxonMobil.

These are businesses with his name in which there are arrangements, entirely political arrangements with foreign governments that give him a share of revenue through various mechanisms.

How can he possibly divest himself unless he sells all of these to people who are not related to him in any way?

EISEN: The thing that he needs to do, and every president has done some version of this, a blind trust or the equivalent since 1978.

What he needs to do is immediately, and he can do it with one stroke of a pen, he needs to get a top independent professional. Not a family member and not a friend, and turn all of his interests over to this trustee to liquidate.

And then it becomes the trustee`s problem to think about, do I do an IPO? An initial public offering? Do I do a leveraged buyout?

Do I go to private equity? The Trump brand is at a point now where it should be possible to do that liquidation.

And then all the money he`s taken out of all of those deals, he`s paid for them, that money goes behind a wall in the trust.

So, some version of that has been done. Of course, Trump has unprecedented conflicts. We`ve never seen anything like this in American history, particularly the foreign ties, including at this hotel, which is selling its services, its rooms to foreign governments.

O`DONNELL: We`re going to have to leave it there for tonight, and we`ll learn a lot more about this on December 15th when he has that promised press conference.

Ambassador Norm Eisen and David Cay Johnston, thank you both for joining us tonight, really appreciate it.

JOHNSTON: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, Barney Frank will join us to tell us what we should be worried about as consumers, especially consumers of banking services in a Trump administration.

Also, Jill Stein will join us to update us on her recount efforts. We`ll see whether Jill Stein still thinks that there is no difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.


O`DONNELL: Remember that horrible story a couple of months ago where Wells Fargo, the bank got caught fraudulently creating credit card accounts for its customers and fraudulently creating checking accounts for its customers that it was then manipulating to its own advantage?

They would probably get away with that in a Trump administration. If the Trump administration does what Donald Trump wants to do and gets rid of the legislation that Barney Frank wrote that prevents exactly that kind of thing.

Barney Frank joins us next.



TRUMP: We`ve being wanting to do a major repeal of Dodd-Frank. We have to get rid of Dodd-Frank. We have to get rid of Dodd-Frank.

You know, you people borrow money, and Dodd-Frank really concentrates business in far fewer hands.

I mean, if you look at what the result is.


O`DONNELL: One of the results that Donald Trump didn`t look at. One of the results of Dodd-Frank is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was created in the Dodd-Frank banking reform bill that Donald Trump now wants to repeal.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of government`s great, and I mean great recent success stories.

As of the last accounting in the middle of last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has delivered over $10 billion in relief to consumers who have been unfairly victimized by financial institutions.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo $185 million in September for its abusive practices involving credit cards, including opening unauthorized credit accounts and bank accounts in the name of Wells Fargo customers.

An outrageously fraudulent practice for which the CEO of the company was forced to quit.

And Wells Fargo admitted guilt. They issued an apology and Wells Fargo, you will notice is now running TV commercials that include a veiled apology and kind of a vow to do much better and operate honestly from now on.

Part of Donald Trump`s "Make America Great Again" plan is to repeal Dodd- Frank and allow banks like Wells Fargo to then get away with the kind of stuff the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau caught them doing and fined them for doing.

For more of what you can expect as consumers in a world without Dodd-Frank, we are now joined by the man who co-wrote Dodd-Frank, former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank.

Congressman Frank, thank you very much for joining us tonight, I really appreciate it.

Your read on where we are on the repeal. I noticed that Donald Trump`s selection for a Treasury Secretary is saying they want to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank, which is a little bit better than the way Donald Trump talks about it.

FRANK: Well, let me read from today`s "New York Times". And Mr. Mnuchin, the aforementioned appointee.

"Mr. Trump has an ally whose nomination is expected to be well received on Wall Street.

A number of traders and bankers contacted on Tuesday said, Mr. Trump`s victory, United States equity markets have hit a high with financial institutions leading the way.

Having a Treasury Secretary from Goldman Sachs, by the way, with broad experience as a financier will sustain the view that the Trump administration looks favorably on Wall Street, not least in pulling back some of the regulations put in place by Mr. Obama."

It`s now clear that with regard to standing up to Wall Street, taking on the big banks, fighting for the little guy, the Trump policy is going to be the greatest bait-and-switch since Trump University.

This is a man who said they put a Republican platform, we`re going to enact Glass-Steagall and break up the banks.

Earlier today on "Cnbc" with Lawrence Kudlow who is the chief adviser to Trump on this. He said, well, we backed away from that.

That`s not there anymore. So, here`s what they would repeal. Among other things, in addition to getting away with the consumer bureau -- when by the way, people should understand.

Before we created the consumer bureau, Elizabeth Warren suggested and Chris Dodd and I worked very hard to get it through over great opposition.

If you are a consumer and you had been mistreated by a bank, you had to go to one of the bank regulators.

You went to the Federal Reserve where they have control with the currency. Those are nice people, but their primary job is to protect the big banks and to protect the economy.

They don`t worry about some older woman who`s been cheated or a Wells Fargo customer.

In addition, one of the things we did that the Republicans apparently want to repeal is to pass a law saying you can`t lend money to people for mortgages who aren`t going to be able to pay it back, which is bad for them and bad for the economy.

Because we have the system where the lenders now don`t have to get paid back by the borrowers.

They sell the right to that loan. They would abolish that. AIG went to the Bush administration for a bailout, which they got.

You know, there were five bailouts during this crisis, all started by George Bush. Although we Democrats get blamed for them in the popular mythology.

But AIG went to the Bush administration in September of 2008 and said you know what? We sold these credit default swaps, a form of insurance against mortgage securities that aren`t paying off.

And we`re $170 billion short of meeting our obligations. What we have in this law, a prohibition against them doing that.

A requirement that if they`re going to sell those things, they have to do them through exchanges. We guarantee that people will be protected. So, it is a reversion essentially to 2008.

Now you`re right. It`s not going to be easy, I don`t think there are a lot of Republican members of Congress who want to vote to get rid of the Consumer Bureau.

Or who want to say let`s get back to the situation where derivatives are totally unregulated and people can incur enormous debts in the hundreds and hundreds of billions, and if they go bad then the Federal Government has to step in.

O`DONNELL: And in his confirmation hearing in the Finance Committee, Steve Mnuchin is going to have a lot to answer for, including his own past business practices involving foreclosures. He was described by some as one of the kings of foreclosures. And clearly, that`s going to be a relevant issue.

FRANK: Yes, he bought a troubled bank -- by the way, for the Republicans, and that is relevant to talk about, they don`t like bailouts. Under the bush Administration, not to criticize them, because that`s the way the world was at the time, they had two choices. If a major institution couldn`t pay their debt, either they let it go bankrupt, which they did with Lehman Brothers which caused a terrible economic shutdown or they paid off all the debts of AIG and kept it in business. Our law says no more of that.

If a company, a big bank comes to the Federal Government and says we can`t pay our debts and they`re so indebted because they`ve been allowed to be irresponsible which our law prevents now. The Federal Government pays off their debts and keeps them in business. They can`t do that anymore. Under the law the Federal Government would say OK, fine. You`re out of business. Here`s the door. We`re taking over your operation.

And if we have to pay any federal money to reduce those debts, we`re going to assess the other big banks to pay it off. There this whole set of rules that we put in to make sure that people do not get indebted beyond what they can pay off because it was that that caused the crisis. And apparently that`s what he wants to repeal and again, the hypocrisy of this man saying I`m for the little guy. Wall Street hasn`t been this happy since herbert Hoover made Andrew Mellon Secretary of the Treasury because that led to the Depression.

O`DONNELL: Barney Frank, thank you very much for joining us tonight. We`re going to need your guidance on this because we know there is going to be a big Dodd-Frank fight next year. Thank you very much. Thanks.

FRANK: well there`s one I`d rather I think he is on the wrong side of this politically.

O`DONNELL: Thank you very much, appreciate it. Coming up, Dr. Jill Stein is leading the effort for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania or the Green Party Candidate Jill Stein joins us next.


O`DONNELL: Hillary Clinton has now surpassed 65 million votes and her lead over Donald Trump has grown to more than 2.5 million votes according to the Cook Political Report. This afternoon Green Party Candidate Jill Stein filed a petition asking for a hand recount of the Presidential Vote in Michigan along with her other recount efforts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Jill Stein cited outdated and unreliable machines and accusations of irregularities. Donald Trump won Michigan by less than 11,000 votes out of more than 4.7 million votes cast. Of course, there is no version of a recount that would win the Presidency for Jill Stein. If a recount could change the outcome of the election, then Hillary Clinton would become President. Jill Stein has said there is no real difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.


JILL STEIN, FORMER GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We are seeing a rise in right wing extremism. Not just in the United States, and it`s not just Donald Trump. It`s also throughout countries in Europe. What is driving this? This is policies like NAFTA, like globalization, like the dominance of the banks, like the Wall Street bailouts, like the Wall Street meltdown thanks to deregulation. Who gave those policies? The Clinton`s were leading the way on those policies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: how would Donald Trump -- how would Donald Trump be as President?

STEIN: The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism. Putting another Clinton in the white house will fan the flames of this right wing extremism. We have known that for a long time since Nazi, Germany.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Stein, who what do you think of Donald Trump?

STEIN: (INAUDIBLE) to Donald Trump and to stand up to Hillary Clinton.


O`DONNELL: Joining us now Dr. Jill Stein, the 2016 Presidential Nominee for the Green Party. Dr. Stein, isn`t your recount now in effect hoping to put another Clinton in the Whitehouse? And do you still see no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

STEIN: No, in my view, there are differences. But that`s not the question here. The purpose of the recount is not to help one candidate or to hurt the other. And in fact, we had identified three States when one of them did not have a declared winner. So it wasn`t clear which way Michigan was going to go.

And I always stated throughout the campaign that when I was asked whether I would stand up for a recount if there were doubts about the reliability and the accuracy of the vote, I always said yes, I would do that. This is something that the Green Party has done before.

That Green Candidates have led the way on other recounts in Ohio in 2004. And I always said that if there was doubt about the confidence in the vote, that yes, I would stand up and call for a recount. It`s not about helping one candidate. This is about helping voters restore our confidence in a voting system at a time that voter confidence in our elections, our political system, our social institutions across the board is kind of hitting rock bottom. And this is something really positive that we the voters can do. And in fact people are chiming in from across the country over 140,000 small donors contributing at an average of $45 apiece in order to make this possible. We`re standing up to say we want to be sure that this voting system is working for all of us.

O`DONNELL: It seems that your vote totals in the various states did not stop Hillary Clinton from winning the Electoral College. that the amounts - - if you transferred all your votes to her, she still wouldn`t win the electoral college, especially because of the big difference Donald Trump has in Pennsylvania, the current state of the count. But do you worry that your campaign and your campaigning to the extent that it was campaigning against Hillary Clinton depressed turnout that could have been for Hillary Clinton and then might have made a difference in those states?

STEIN: So, Larry, I think it`s really important to be clear that the solution to the problems in our democracy are not to silence opposition voices. At a time when the voters are saying they disliked and distrusted these candidates at record levels, when people are disavowing the Democratic and Republican parties at record levels, the solution here is to not suppress other choices. The solution is a voting system that doesn`t divide our votes, that doesn`t force you to vote against the person you hate the most instead of voting the candidate who represents your values.

The state of Maine just passed a system called ranked choice voting. It lets you rank your choices. And it gives you the assurance that you can bring your values in to the voting booth, not just your fear, but your values. You rank your choices knowing that if your first choice lose, your vote is automatically assigned to your second choice. That`s how we fix this. It`s not by declaring that we have, say, two official state parties that have to vote for, you know, if we have state sanctioned parties and everybody else is disappeared, you know, how is that different than Iran or say Russia or countries the political systems where it`s tightly controlled. We need an open system that has more voices and more choices.

O`DONNELL: Did you at any point looked at the Trump campaign think this is the single worst candidate for President that this country has ever seen? This is a unique situation? And this might not be the year where a third party should make the kind of effort they might make in another year?

STEIN: You know, unfortunately, Lawrence, when you look at what`s been going on over the past many elections, both parties have continued to march to the right. In many ways, the Democratic Party is where the Republican Party used to be not so long ago. And as a mother and as a medical doctor, I`m very concerned about where we`re going on our jobs that are being exported, wages that are depressed, on a health care system where the costs are exploding, on a generation locked into debt. You know, we`re not fixing this not, not under Democrats and not under Republicans. In my view, we need a new system that is not bought and paid for by the powerful few.

O`DONNELL: Jill Stein, thank you very much for joining us tonight, appreciate it.

STEIN: Good to be with you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Coming up, if Donald Trump nominates Sarah Palin to run the veterans affairs administration, which is the latest rumor about the Trump transition, she will face in her senate confirmation hearings much harder questions than what newspapers do you read.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?

SARAH PALIN, 9TH GOVERNOR, ALASKA 2006-2009: I read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for media.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What specifically? I`m curious.

PALIN: All of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.




TRUMP: Use the example of Carrier. They build air conditioners. Carrier fired their employees. They`re moving to Mexico. And here is how you stop it, folks. You say I`m going to charge a 35 percent tax on every air conditioner that you make and sell into the United States. And it goes through a very strong border, by the way.


O`DONNELL: And so president-elect Donald Trump got Carrier on the phone to try the save those jobs. And he failed spectacularly. He agreed to a deal with Carrier in which Mike Pence, the Governor of Indiana will issue a corporate welfare check to Carrier for $700,000 a year in exchange for which Carrier will then move 1300 jobs to Mexico as planned. Carrier says it will leave 850 jobs in Indiana that it was planning to move to Mexico.

So it turns out the Trump plan is not to slam companies like Carrier with tariffs as promised. It turns out the best he can do on those jobs is less than half of what he promised to do. He promised to save them all at no government expense. And instead he gets a corporate welfare check written to Carrier by a Governor. And then waves goodbye to those 1300 jobs that Carrier then moves to Mexico exactly as they planned to do. Donald Trump will congratulate himself for this brilliance tomorrow on a trip to Indiana. We will bring you more details of Donald Trump`s surrender to Carrier as they emerge, tomorrow.

Coming up, what do you think we`ve never had in the cabinet? A governor who quit being governor halfway through the term. Sarah Palin is now being rumored as a possible Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Tayyib Rashid knows something about the VA. He`s also known as the Muslim Marine on Twitter will join us.


O`DONNELL: I guess it had to happen. Sarah Palin is reportedly under consideration to be the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the Trump Administration. Sarah Palin`s son-in-law posted a video on Facebook that seems intended as a campaign ad in Sarah Palin`s campaign to join the Trump Cabinet.


PALIN: We can`t wait for D.C. to fix their bureaucratic blunders. This bureaucracy is killing our vets. Our debt of gratitude, it starts payment with three simple solutions if government can and should do right now. First with health care, give vouchers for treatment outside the V.A. And instead of illegal aliens being rewarded with a handout of U.S. Benefits, no, we demand that the vets are first in line.


O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Tayyib Rashid, a Muslim Marine Veteran who gained national attention for tweeting exchanges with Donald Trump after Donald Trump suggested that American Muslims should carry special identification. Tayyib Rashid, what is your reaction to the possibility of Sarah Palin, who would by the way be the first nonveteran in history to run the Veterans Administration.

TAYYIB RASHID, MUSLIM MARINE VETERAN: Well, Lawrence, first of all, thank you very much for having me. In short, I`m horrified. The V.A. -- the head of the V.A. is not a small post. It is a post that has $182 billion budget. It has 300,000 employees. And unfortunately, Sarah Palin has neither the experience nor the credibility to hold such a post. What is needed is a leader who first and foremost is a veteran and can identify with the trials and tribulations and the challenges that the veterans faced first and foremost and secondly someone who has a credibility that could actually help fix the system and improve the Veterans Affairs from where it is today.

O`DONNELL: The state of Alaska has 15,127 government workers for the state, on the state payroll. As you just pointed out, the Veterans Affairs Administration has 341,000 employees, 20 times more employees. It is one of the most difficult management challenges that exists in the Federal Government. You have to manage a healthcare system and much, much, much more. Sarah Palin was able to manage those 15,000 for two years before she couldn`t take it anymore and gave up. This is an astonishing notion that an agency that needs such strong management would get someone like Sarah Palin.

RASHID: You`re absolutely correct, Lawrence. And that`s the frustration from a veteran`s point of view. Look, what really has to happen at this point is that all the government officials need to follow the advice as given by the head of the (INAUDIBLE) community, (INAUDIBLE) and with the (INAUDIBLE) of Islam which is to remind all government officials that they have a responsibility to discharge their duty with justice. And an appointment of this person to that important of a post would be a complete dereliction of duty. And for the sake of the Veterans, what I hope is that Donald Trump starts appointing people to the posts who are actually qualified for the job versus those who are his biggest supporters.

O`DONNELL: Tayyib Rashid, thank you very much for joining us, really appreciate it.

RASHID: thank you so much.

O`DONNELL: We`re going to be right back with a very special last word. And the last word is about you.


JOYCE CHIZALI, STUDENT: Little by little, we`ll go, no matter how narrow the path, we are going to force ourselves to pass to the test. And little by little we`ll go and reach the Promised Land. Don`t be shaken. Don`t turn back. Little by little you`ll go and lead to your destination. .

O`DONNELL: That was last night on Giving Tuesday. We introduce you to Joyce Chizali, a young woman unable to pay for her education, her high school education in Malawi. Felice tweeted loved her and donated so another young woman can go to school. Little by little we`ll get there.

Thanks to your generosity to the KIND fund. We were able to pay for Joyce`s high school education and help her get one step closer to fulfilling her dream of becoming as she told us a doctor and a poet. As many of you know, kids in need of desks is a unique partnership with MSNBC and UNICEF to provide desks for schools s in Malawi. These desks are built in Malawi creating jobs there. And they`re delivered to schools where the kids have never seen desks.

The KIND fund also provides girls scholarships for girls to complete their high school education. There are no free high schools in Malawi. After listening to Joyce`s story on Giving Tuesday, you contributed $289,674 to the KIND fund, which I believe might be a one-night record in what we`ve collected, and it moved the fund across the $11 million line in the total raised since we began this project six years ago. You have now contributed $11,065,869. To contribute you can go to You can desks and girl`s scholarship to anybody on your gift list this holiday season. Any amount you can give is helpful. There`s no contribution too small to have a real impact to the Malawi. For Joyce and the hundreds of other kids you have helped in Malawi, we can never thank you enough.

MSNBC`s live coverage continues into "THE 11TH HOUR".