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

Deutsche Bank faces investigation. TRANSCRIPT: 6/19/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O'Donnell.

Guests: Eric Swalwell, Jennifer Palmieri, Nicholas Kristof

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

One week away from the debates.  Just one week away. 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Yes.  Why are you so mean? 

O`DONNELL:  You don`t have any homework.  Come on.  You can just -- you can just wing it.  Just wing it. 

MADDOW:  You know what, even if I canceled everything else in my life.  I`ve canceled food, sleep, social interaction, my TV show, everything I need to do and all I was doing was prepping for the debate for the next week, I would still not be ready. 

O`DONNELL:  It`s called pressure, Rachel. 

MADDOW:  Yes, I know.  Thanks, my friend.  Thanks, Lawrence.  I really, really appreciate it.

O`DONNELL:  There is nothing much at stake.  It`s just the future of the country. 

MADDOW:  Do you have a hot iron you want me to hold for you with my head? 

O`DONNELL:  Thank you, Lawrence.

MADDOW:  Thanks, Lawrence. 

O`DONNELL:  But what do we call them?  Some of us have been wondering for a long time.  What do we call the places where the Trump administration looks up babies and men and women, children, people of all ages, people who can do us no harm?  What should we call those places? 

I will answer that question at the end of this hour with a look at America`s long history of concentration camps, beginning with what American history books call the Indian Wars. 

But first tonight, federal authorities are investigating Donald Trump`s favorite bank, the bank that would do business with him when no one else would.  Federal authorities are investigating whether Deutsche Bank complied with laws prohibiting money laundering and other crimes.  That`s according to seven people familiar with the investigation who spoke to "The New York Times." 

"The New York Times" reports the investigation includes a review of Deutsche Bank`s handling of so-called suspicious activity report that is the employees prepared about possibly problematic transactions, including some links to President Trump`s son in law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, according to people close to the bank and others familiar with the matter. 

"The New York Times" reports that the FBI recently contacted the lawyer for Deutsche Bank, whistle blower, Tammy McFadden. 

Quote: Ms. McFadden, a former compliance specialist at the bank, told "The New York Times" last month that she had flagged transactions involving Mr. Kushner`s family company in 2016, but the bank managers decided not to file the suspicious activity report she prepared.  The FBI identification of Deutsche Bank appears to be following a similar track to two House committees, the House Oversight and the House Financial Services Committees.  Both of those are investigating Deutsche Bank`s relationship to the president and his family, including records connected to the bank`s handling of potentially suspicious transactions. 

"Politico" reports in total, Trump faces at least 15 criminal or civil inquiries by nine federal, state, and local agencies into his business, his charity, his campaign, his inaugural committee and his personal finances. 

During a closed door interview with House Judiciary Committee today, a White House lawyer and Justice Department lawyer advised former White House staffer, Hope Hicks, not to answer questions about anything involving her work in the White House.  Hope Hicks who no longer works in the White House followed the advice of the White House and Justice Department lawyers and a refused to answer such questions. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER:  So they are preventing her from talking about anything? 

REP. TED LIEU (D-CA):  Anything related to her tenure at the White House.  Absolutely.  Even something as simple as where is your office located?  Objection.  It`s ridiculous.  There is no such thing as absolute immunity.

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI):  This is an ongoing effort by the president of the United States and the White House to prevent Congress from getting to the truth and getting all the answers that we deserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL:  The committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, said that the committee did obtain useful information from Hope Hicks that did not involve her work in the White House. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY):  Hope Hicks answered some questions.  She gave us a lot of good information.  The White House asserted so-called absolute immunity which is ridiculous and which we will destroy in court.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

O`DONNELL:  "The Washington Post" reports that Hope Hicks, quote, did answer some questions about her time on the campaign, including topics such as Russia, interference and WikiLeaks references made in meetings. 

Democratic Congressman David Cicilline said she was asked about the president`s alleged relationship with Playboy model Karen McDougal, though he did not say how she answered.  A transcript of the interview could be released within 48 hours. 

Leading off our discussion are Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California.  He`s a Judiciary Committee member and a House Intelligence Committee member and he`s also a Democratic candidate for president. 

Also joining us, John Heilemann, national affairs analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.  He`s co-host and executive producer of Showtime`s "The Circus". 

And, Congressman Swalwell, this interview today with Hope Hicks, what was the committee -- Jerry Nadler is saying that you got a lot of useful information at the committee.  So, how much of what the committee wanted to hear did the committee actually get to hear? 

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Good evening, Lawrence.  I was a part of that interview team today. 

And what we saw principally was just how far the president is willing to go to protect the country from knowing what he did, what he did with the Russians, what he did to obstruct the investigation into that and then just to show us what he is willing to do to obstruct Congress and a witness in Ms. Hicks who I interviewed a year ago who really hasn`t changed. 

She was quite forthcoming in some ways.  She has a very deep knowledge and a front row seat to what the president and candidate Trump did, but also she knows where the red lines are.  And that`s where she stops and refuses to answer. 

So, I think it`s important for us to see where the red lines are for the Trump team and then to work around them and the subpoenas and document requests we send out.  So, we are going to get to the truth eventually, whether they want to tell us now or tell us later. 

O`DONNELL:  Let`s listen to what your colleague Madeline Dean said about it.

  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA):  I asked her about communications with Russians or Russian officials.  She tried to say that there were no communications whatsoever.  When I asked more specifically, she admitted there were probably an e-mail or more.  She didn`t think they were relevant.  I tried to impress upon the witness that it was not up to her to decide what was relevant, that we were here to get the facts, the truth before the American people.  So, I had some stonewalling there. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Swalwell, did she say anything about that part of the questioning, the questioning about contacts and activities during the campaign?  Did she say anything that was different from what she appeared to say in the Mueller report? 

SWALWELL:  Well, I will characterize it this way.  She knew what she was not supposed to say and that`s where the memory would be foggy or she would refuse to answer.  And she wouldn`t really go into the Mueller report, citing it as a time she was at the White House. 

And, again, what this shows me, Lawrence, is how guilty this gang is.  Innocent people don`t come in and act this way.  Innocent presidents don`t tell their aides or former aides to go in and put up, you know, walls around what you can say.  Innocent people say, you know what, we didn`t do anything wrong, you go there and tell them everything we did and we`re going to be cleared. 

That`s not what we have seen.  That`s not what we will see.  And that`s because we don`t have an innocent president. 

O`DONNELL:  John Heilemann, Hope Hicks was sitting there and taking advice from a House lawyer, an advice from a Justice Department lawyer.  But the decision about whether to answer questions or not was in fact completely up to her. 

And so, the case going forward to compel her testimony is against her. 

JOHN HEILEMANN, MSNBC NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST:  Right.  And, I think, you know, look, she is trying to walk a line and trying to keep herself from getting into trouble for refusing to testify, so she`s come forward, while not saying anything that would get her in trouble with her former boss and with the coterie around him.  I think the -- it is -- several congressmen today said that this was obstruction of justice in plain sight.  I think that`s clearly the case. 

We are witnessing a rolling case of obstruction of justice when it comes to how the Trump administration dealing with these people.  And I do continue to ask the question over and over again.  Why on earth was it acceptable for Democrats to allow this to take place behind closed doors because it would have been potentially politically devastating.  It`s not going to be devastating, I have not seen it.  It`s not going to be devastating, just reading it in the transcript. 

Seeing it on television would have a different effect.  It would have changed I think the dynamic in a fundamentally way, I just have to question whether or not Democrats are serious -- taking this matter seriously to have reached this accommodation, because I think in the end, she would have testified publicly under the right kind of pressure. 

O`DONNELL:  You know, we happened to have a member of the Judiciary right here.

HEILEMANN:  There he is.

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Swalwell, what about that?  Why was it agreed to allow her to close the door on this and keep the cameras out? 

SWALWELL:  Yes, I wish it was in public too, and will let the chairman answer that.  I think all of these witnesses should have to testify in public.  It may take longer to get there because they may not be willing to come in at all, but a court is going to say there is no way around this.  I think the public needs to really get read in and see just how lawless of a candidate and a president we have. 

O`DONNELL:  Congresswoman, what is -- what is the plan that the Judiciary Committee is working under and all committees when they have a plan, whether it`s legislative or otherwise, have a schedule -- a schedule of completing work and a purpose to the work?  I don`t understand what the schedule of the Judiciary Committee is or what the purpose of the Judiciary Committee`s inquiries are at this point. 

SWALWELL:  So, it`s looking at obviously volume of the Mueller report, the Russian connections.  And then, of course, the attempts to obstruct by the president. 

The challenge, Lawrence, is that there is the wish list of who is relevant and the list of people who are actually willing to engage with you.  Hope Hicks kind of goes into the middle area because she`s willing to come in, was not willing to do it publicly.  And then there is a list of people who won`t come in at all. 

And so, you don`t really get a -- I would say a timeline here that matches up with the series of events.  You are getting people coming in based on their willingness and where we are with the courts.  Again, that`s all the more reason I`m calling for impeachment. 

I`ve had enough.  This is obstruction of Congress in real time.  This is a mass obstruction spree that this president is on.  And we just -- we can`t wait for the courts now.  He`s risking the republic the way he is acting. 

O`DONNELL:  John, that final part of the answer is the part I understand.  The objective -- Congressman Swalwell`s objective would be impeachment and beginning the impeachment process.  The president`s objective is clearly what his objective has been all along, which is delay. 

He played a game with Mueller`s office for year about will he or won`t he testify.  He was never going to testify, but he managed to build in a year of delay in playing the game about will he testify.  Now, the president is having witnesses do exactly the same thing.  Play the delay game. 

This committee is going at most one witness per week on this. 

HEILEMANN:  Yes.

O`DONNELL:  So the legal enforcement once the witness denied the committee what the committee wants, the legal enforcement on this is a bunch of backed up vehicles on a highway to nowhere. 

HEILEMANN:  Yes, and to your point -- I think your question was a pointed and correct question, which is what is the point?  I mean, it`s not clear what the point is. 

Congressman Swalwell now has a point.  His point is he thinks we should go for impeachment proceedings.  But I don`t understand.  This is my question about why she was allowed to testify in private. 

Is Bob Mueller, we had a lot of conversation in the last 24 hours about the Mueller situation because the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Schiff, has said time is running out.  We had members of those irrespective important committees say we`ve got to get him up now.  We`re going to have to subpoena him and are they going to let Mueller come up and testify in private?  What good would that do?

But I assume the answer to that question is no.  It would be insane to allow that to happen.  But on the basis of this and the basis of mealy- mouthed, contradictory, unclear, obscurantist kind of strategy that Democratic leadership is pursuing right now, I don`t know the end game is.  And that`s -- of course, it makes sense that the tactics are confusing if you can`t clearly say what the end game is and no one who is in leadership right now is clearly saying so. 

O`DONNELL:  I do want to get to the Deutsche Bank news of the night, but, Congressman Swalwell, let me give you another swing at what John is talking about and what I referenced in, and everybody -- everyone who has ever gone to law school or maybe in high school knows the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied". 

And the president certainly knows that.  And so, as I look at the possible calendar of the committee`s work, and having worked in the Senate, I have a rough feel for this.  Not in impeachment mode.

But you are unlikely to get your subpoenas enforced this year at the pace this is going, if they are going to be enforce and you`re to be moving what would be the impeachment clock possibly according to that schedule not even started until we`re in an actual election year.  At which time it begins to look a bit absurdist in terms of timing going up against an election.  That`s what it going through, I believe, President Trump`s mind.  That he`s going to be able to back this process up through delay, to the point where even someone like you who wants the impeachment process will admit a year from now in the middle of the summer of an election year, it`s too late to start it. 

SWALWELL:  I`m going to throw the calculation out.  And if it happens to be in an election year, especially because this president through his delaying and obstructing and tampering caused that, well, then you know, sorry, Mr. Trump.  That`s what you have brought. 

But I just want to defend this -- I do think if you are looking at the strategy is here right now, we have our noses up against the canvas board.  We are looking in this day to day and different strokes are being put on the canvas board from subpoena to witness requests to court fights to oversight.  I think maybe a year from now when we step back and we see the court fights we`ve won, the witnesses who have come in, that you will see a picture of holding this president accountable. 

So, I don`t want to throw out the strategy, you know, right now.  I think it`s frustrating right now because he is so lawless and he challenges us, but we have to make sure we uphold the rule of law with a lawless ruler.  And sometimes it doesn`t move as fast as anyone of us want. 

O`DONNELL:  John Heilemann, the Deutsche Bank report tonight in "The New York Times", the FBI is investigating Donald Trump`s favorite and at this point only bank.  And Donald Trump, it`s because of reports that Donald Trump`s transactions and Jared Kushner`s transactions were flagged by auditors within the bank whose job it was to flag possible suspicious transactions. 

HEILEMANN:  And then nothing was done about it because apparently, something that anybody who`s followed the career of Donald Trump and his entanglement (ph) with this particular bank, then corrupt leadership in the bank apparently quashed those movements, what the examinations should have taken place.  And I think, you know, the question has always been, why is it that when no one else was willing to give Donald Trump money, why was Deutsche Bank willing to give him money and what are the implications of that in terms of international -- potential money laundering cases and connections to foreign powers and so on?

But it`s obvious the more we see on this, the more it`s obvious that people`s suspicions about Deutsche Bank and that there is something wrong here.  Not just in terms of the specific transactions, but in terms of the history of the relationship between the Trump family and this bank, that there is something -- there is a rat here that is starting to smell pretty bad and we are -- it`s going smell worse and worse the more we sniff it. 

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Swalwell, who is going get there first?  Because we just outlined your -- the Intelligence Committee is looking at Deutsche Bank and the Judiciary Committee has an interest in Deutsche Bank.  Now, we know the FBI is investigating Deutsche Bank. 

SWALWELL:  Yes, we believe that the House Intelligence Committee is probably one of the first sets of eyes that`s looking at the president`s financial dealings with Russia.  That looks like that was a red line for the Mueller team.  And so, that`s the leadership of Chairman Schiff --

(CROSSTALK)

O`DONNELL:  Can I pause you on that?

SWALWELL:  Yes, yes.

O`DONNELL:  When you say red line for the Mueller team, are you saying this is a line they didn`t cross and therefore they left it for you? 

SWALWELL:  Ii read the Mueller report.  I did not see any investigation into the president`s finances with Russia.  So, we have a responsibility to look at that.  Yes. 

Second, I would say that if Jared Kushner was doing business while he was working at the White House with the Russians, he should be thrown out of the White House.

And third, I do not trust this attorney general to be anywhere near an investigation into the president`s family doing business with the Russians.  If that proves to be the case, we will need another special counsel.  There is no way that we can trust the objectivity of this attorney general to investigate the president if business transactions are ongoing right now with the Russians. 

O`DONNELL:  John Heilemann, "New York Times" breaks the story, the FBI working beneath the Attorney General William Barr in the organizational chart at the Justice Department -- 

HEILEMANN:  Yes.

O`DONNELL:  -- is investigating the president`s bank possibly involving transactions of the president. 

Congressman Swalwell`s point.  Can Attorney General William Barr be the real supervisor of that investigation? 

HEILEMANN:  It depends.  There`s nothing that he has done makes him seem reliable on this matter, and anyone who was skeptical or cynical about if his -- if he becomes activist, it`s right to be as skeptical as you can could possibly be.  In a normal world, the attorney general would say the FBI, of course, can do this. 

And I think it`s clear that some parts of the FBI are still operating as if it`s a normal world.  They are pursuing this investigation as if the attorney general allowed them to do what they`re going to do. 

But do I think that`s reasonable assumption on their part?  I do not.  And I think that Congressman Swalwell and others in oversight need to keep a very, very close eye on this thing to make sure the integrity of the investigation is maintained. 

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you very much for joining us - - 

SWALWELL:  My pleasure, thanks.

O`DONNELL:  -- and helping us work through our confusion about where we are in this process and where we are going.  Really appreciate you joining us. 

SWALWELL:  My pleasure.  Thanks. 

O`DONNELL:  And John Heilemann is going to stay with us.

When we come back, a new poll shows what Democratic primary voters are thinking about the importance of impeachment and they think it`s pretty important. 

And in a damning new report, the United Nations says an investigation is now absolutely necessary into the crown prince of Saudi Arabia`s regarding the murder of "Washington Post" journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.  "New York Times" Nicholas Kristof will join us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL:  We have breaking news. 

Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois has just posted a video on Twitter announcing that she has joined the Democratic members of Congress and one Republican who believe that the House of Representatives should open an impeachment inquiry against President Trump. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL):  Today, I am announcing that I believe that the House of Representatives should begin an impeachment inquiry officially because President Trump certainly has committed all kinds of offenses that meet the standard of impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors.  I felt really from day one, from the time that Donald Trump raised his hand and took the oath of office that he had already violated the Emoluments Clause. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL:  Sixty-eight House members now favor opening an impeachment inquiry against President Trump.  Tonight, a new Morning Consult poll reveals that 67 percent of Democrats now favor beginning impeachment proceedings against President Trump, up from 59 percent who supported impeachment proceedings in April. 

And we have new polling tonight just one week before the first presidential debate.  New polling on the candidates.  At this hour, one week from tonight, we will be in the middle of the first Democratic debate of the 2020 presidential campaign right here on MSNBC. 

Ten Democratic candidates will be debating Wednesday night, another 10 Thursday night.  And tonight, new national polling shows Elizabeth Warren is edging into second place behind Joe Biden.  A new Monmouth University poll shows Joe Biden holding on to first place with 32 percent, Elizabeth Warren now takes second place with 15, a jump of five points since May.  Bernie Sanders in third place with 14.  Kamala Harris is in fourth place with eight.  Pete Buttigieg is in fifth place with five percent.

Senator Warren`s biggest gain came from self-identifying liberals whose support increased by 11 points in one month.

Joining our discussion now, Jennifer Palmieri, former White House communications director for President Obama and a former communications director for Hillary Clinton`s presidential campaign.  John Heilemann is back with us. 

And, Jennifer, let`s begin with this -- what is now 68.  Jan Schakowsky makes it 68. 

JENNIFER PALMIERI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Right.  And it`s -- we are in June now, right?  I can imagine a situation where -- I mean, I did note that the speaker today when she got asked about Hope Hicks`s testimony, she said the words "obstruction of justice" came out of her mouth.  It wouldn`t surprise me if when we come back in the fall, you know, she may have a view that it was time to start with such proceedings. 

O`DONNELL:  And, John, Jan Schakowsky is a Nancy Pelosi Democrat in the House of Representatives.  She is a veteran.  What I find fascinating is we had Katie Porter on the other night.  She comes from a swing district who Nancy Pelosi presumably has been trying to protect in this whole impeachment urgency and trying to protect them from taking a position. 

She took a position.  She said she is for impeachment but she told us about the meeting she had with Nancy Pelosi before making her public announcement and she told us that it was -- there was no tension, there was no difficulty.  She just told the speaker, here`s where I am, here`s what I`m going do. 

This is -- this is moving slowly but surely in that direction. 

HEILEMANN:  Yes.  I mean, look, Jan Schakowsky as you pointed out in the tenth term, I believe, and represents the north side of Chicago and very liberal.  She`s a Pelosi Democrat in every sense.  It looks like Nancy Pelosi`s district. 

This is a place where Jan Schakowsky I think was going to eventually get.  But the Katie Porters of the world matter a lot more.  They matter a lot more to Speaker Pelosi.  Jan is going to be reelected. 

Some of these other Democrats -- these freshman Democrats, the ones who are in Trump districts are the ones that Nancy Pelosi needs to protect in order to protect the majority.  So, you and I have a view about the lack of clarity coming out of Democratic leadership, including the speaker of the strategy and end game.  But we do also understand the bind she is in and what her responsibilities are and how important it is to hold on to the House.  She is watching those Katie Porters. 

And if -- he question is not just are they going to move, but the questions here to the earlier conversation, how fast do they move?  Is slowly enough to get to timing that leads to impeachment inquiry or is slowly but surely so slow that it plays out in Trump`s end game that we were describing? 

O`DONNELL:  Jennifer, in my day working in Congress which now seems like a lifetime ago because I guess it was. 

PALMIERI:  It was when I was there.  I remember. 

O`DONNELL:  Right, during the Clinton presidency. 

Both in the House and the Senate, a leadership player, someone in the House who was close to the leadership or someone in the Senate who was close and consistent with the leadership never made a move like this without the leadership`s secret blessing.  So, I would have said to you back then, well, obviously, Jan got the speaker`s OK to do this because the speaker is perfectly happy to have more going in that direction and she might even be encouraging it and she has her own secret time being this. 

But I don`t know what`s going on behind the closed door now. 

PALMIERI:  I think Nancy Pelosi is sort that was old style leader and she does have that kind of I wouldn`t say control, but exerts that leadership over her caucus.  I would be very surprised if Jan Schakowsky had not let her know that this is happening. 

I think you are right.  I think that Pelosi is probably OK with this building ahead the steam over the summer.  You don`t want to start this in the summer and let it hang out over August and come back in the fall.  You know, as you recall, impeachment proceedings under President Clinton started in October and he was impeached in December.  It can happen very fast. 

O`DONNELL:  Can you imagine a Nancy Pelosi, Jen, where they are both sitting there, and Jan says to Nancy, this is what I want to do.  If Nancy wanted to say to her, give me another month.  I need another month.  She would have said it, right?  She just would have. 

PALMIERI:  What`s the pressure of Jan Schakowsky? 

O`DONNELL:  Right.  Jan -- 

PALMIERI:  She has a very safe seat.  She doesn`t have to do this. 

O`DONNELL:  Yes, and they have done so much business for so long. 

PALMIERI:  Yes.

HEILEMANN:  I agree.  I think the question is a fine line they were drawing here.  Is she encouraging Schakowsky or is she accepting?  OK, that`s fine.  I`m OK with this or is it, hey, Jan, let`s go?

O`DONNELL:  It`s your turn. 

HEILEMANN:  That`s the question.  You know, is she pushing this along the tracks or is she willing to let various members have their own politics and see how it plays out?  That`s what I don`t really know. 

O`DONNELL:  Jennifer, what is this new polling on impeachment doing this to dynamic in the House? 

PALMIERI:  I think that, you know, this is like all these things are pushing in that direction.  And John was commenting to me about the poll that has Warren in second place, which is a very big deal. 

O`DONNELL:  Second place by one point.  Margin of error. 

HEILEMANN:  The trajectory is all we care about. 

PALMIERI:  Yes, moving up at a steady pace and someone who had endorsed impeachment.  She`s the first presidential candidate that endorsed impeachment. 

I think I know when people -- when I hear from friends who are impressed by her, they bring up policy first, but, you know, the clarity on impeachment could be a part of it. 

But, you know, Senator Sanders is not handling this well.  He had a tweet this evening, "Politico" wrote a story talking about how centrists will be more comfortable with Elizabeth Warren.  He tweeted, cat`s out of the bag.  You know, the big bank people, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is trying to stop our agenda, and the agenda that he listed is the same agenda that Warren has. 

It`s interesting because it`s the first time Bernie Sanders being nervous, you know?

HEILEMANN:  Yes.

PALMIERI:  During "16, he was pretty steady, he was pretty fearless.  I don`t think he expected to win in `16.  I think he does expect to be the nominee this time and to see someone creep up on him on what he considers to be his issues seems to have unnerved him. 

O`DONNELL:  John, it`s been a very polite campaign so far with the Democrats.  There has been very little poll movement.  Poll movement is what creates tension in campaigns. 

HEILEMANN: Yes, the poll movement and things like opportunity, certainly today, you saw some people going after Joe Biden in a more direct way than they have before over these comments that he made about these segregation of Senators.

And you saw Cory Booker and some other people going pretty directly at him in a way we haven`t seen before, and that also is tied to poll movement. Because the reality is that this national poll means less to me than the state polls in key states, but all of them tell us a similar story, which is Biden losing a little bit of altitude, not dramatically, but he is headed down in almost every poll you see.

Sanders headed down but more dramatically in almost every poll you see. And the upward momentum really - Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris, kind of static. The one person who is moving up right now across all these polls in South Carolina and other places nationally is Elizabeth Warren.

And I think that whichever said is important, it`s not - there is not one thing that explains it. Bernie, the wheels looking like they may be coming off the wagon a little bit is creating an opportunity for her. Her policy agenda is capturing a lot of people certainly the elite class and educated Democrats.

But at a moment when there is confusion and lack of clarity, especially when Democrats on the Hill about what to do about impeachment, to be the clearest strongest voice on that topic, clarity and strength matter. And she was out early and she has been clear and strong on an issue that matters to a lot of Democrats in the nominating electorate.

LAWRENCE: Jennifer, let me get a last word from you. As the only veteran of a Presidential campaign here, when you got to feel this big and you`re looking at the polling numbers and you are somewhere down there below four or five, somewhere in there, and you`re trying to find numbers for yourself, do you look at Joe Biden`s number and try to take voters away from him, do you look at the undecideds and try to take voters away from him, do you look at Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and try to take voters away from them?

PALMIERI: I think everybody is going to look at the people at the top right now. The problem for Biden is I think his strength is that people think he is going to be the nominee and they think that he is a very steady leader.

And as soon as he starts to look uncertain and shaky, he`s a less sure bet and then he could fall quickly. But I think if there is going to be movement, if you are at 1% right now and you`re going to move somehow, it`s because Biden collapses, that`s why.

O`DONNELL: Jennifer Palmieri gets the last word. John Heilemann, thank you for joining us.

And when we come back, a damning new report from the United Nations about the need to investigate the Saudi Crown Prince regarding the murder of Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. New York Times Nicholas Kristof will join us on that.

And what do we call them, what do we call the places where President Trump locks up children - men, women, and children of all ages? We will take on that question at the end of this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Today, the United Nations released a report on the assassination of Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. And I must warn you, this report is very difficult to read; I will be reading you passages of this that you might not want to hear. The report lays out in horrifying detail the events leading up to and following Jamal Khashoggi`s murder and suggests that the killing was authorized by officials at the highest levels of the Saudi Royal Court.

In one harrowing passage, the report describes an exchange that took place between a forensic doctor who worked for the Saudi Interior Ministry and a Saudi Intelligence Official just minutes before Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Now this is where I must warn you, this is where you might want to mute the volume on this. This will not be easy to read, but I want to give you a feeling of how much detail and how much surveillance material has been used in putting this investigation together at the United Nations.

What I`m about to read you is the most horrifying thing that has - I have ever had to read from this chair. So, with that warning, I`m going to proceed with this.

It says, inside the consulate, the Intelligence Officer and the doctor had a conversation just minutes before Mr. Khashoggi entered. The Intelligence Officer asked whether it will be possible to put the trunk in a bag. The doctor replied, no, too heavy. He expressed hope that it would be easy. Joints will be separated. It is not a problem. The body is heavy. First time I cut on the ground, if we take plastic bags and cut it into pieces, it will be finished. We will wrap each of them, leather bags.

The report claims that its findings warrant investigation of high level Saudi Officials, individual liability, including the Crown Princes.

Today, President Trump`s nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft faced questions from lawmakers at her Senate confirmation hearing. Craft is the wife of a major Trump donor, who currently sits as the Ambassador to Canada, where she has been criticized for being mysteriously absent from her job in Canada, over 300 days since taking office in October 2017.

Most of the questions from the Democrats at her confirmation hearing revolve around her unexplained absences and her family`s history of climate denialism. But Senator Tim Kaine did ask her about Jamal Khashoggi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): I want to ask really specifically about Khashoggi, because this is now going to be in your wheelhouse if you`re confirmed. There is a request that the UN put in the Security Council Act. So let me just state it again, as I did. Do you believe that there should be accountability for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi?

KELLY KRAFT: I believe that where this investigation will take us, we will follow. And if - yes, anyone who is responsible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: After this break, New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Nicholas Kristof will join us on the UN report on the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Today, the fiance of "Washington Post" Journalist Jamal Khashoggi wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times, if Jamal and his principals have any humanitarian and moral worth, this is the time to speak up to support the struggle for democracy in the Arab world. Isn`t it crucial to speak up against his violent death? If people of virtue don`t stand up today for a man who defended such values and fought to advance them in his country, then who else is going to do it?

Joining our discussion now, Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer Prize Winning Columnist for The New York Times and friend of Jamal Khashoggi. Your reaction to the UN report today?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, THE NEW YORK TIMES PULITZER PRIZES WINNING COLUMNIST: This is a magnificent report. I mean, I read it with just such exhilaration. It has been so frustrating for people who knew Jamal to see him murdered, dismembered, then to see a cover up in the Saudi Arabia with claims that he had walked out of the Consulate with other people supposedly being put on trial, with the government not even announcing what happened to his body, and then to have the U.S. participate in that cover up and say it wasn`t clear whether MBS was involved.

This has just been so painful. And then to see this 100-page UN report laying out meticulously how the Saudi Arabian government organized an assassination squad on foreign territory saying other countries should declare universal jurisdiction and impose criminal sanctions. And maybe most important, this UN report specifically called on other countries to impose financial sanctions, personal sanctions on the Crown Prince targeting his personal assets abroad.

This is a guy - the Crown Prince has a $300 million home, a chateau in France, said to be the most expensive home in the world. I don`t really think it is going to be seized, but let him worry a little bit about that.

O`DONNELL: But that`s what the UN was calling for.

KRISTOF: That`s what they`re calling for. And they just lay it out. It`s going to be a lot harder for President Trump to ignore this report. I hope that within the Saudi government, it will also make it just a little bit harder - if when King Salman dies, for the Crown Prince to inherit and become the next king. If that happens, we`re stuck with the Crown Prince for the next 50 years as king. So I hope this will be one more impediment to him inheriting from his father as well.

O`DONNELL: And it seems to me, the graphic detail in the report is there specifically for the Donald Trumps of the world to say this is the evidence, and the surveillance evidence they have is quite extraordinary.

KRISTOF: It`s breathtaking. This lays out in forensic detail how they planned it. This wasn`t some accident he got in a fight. This was planned to murder him, to dismember him from before he entered. Then there was an enormous cover up afterward.

Look, if President Trump simply refuses to look, and I think he did that in the case of American intelligence which told him that MBS was behind it, then there is only so much you can do.

But I think this does begin to chip away at the impunity that the Crown Prince has enjoyed. And as his fiance said, look it`s too late to save Jamal`s life, but there are other people who are facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Maybe this will place a little bit more pressure on other world leaders to speak up for other people who may face executions, maybe it will make the Crown Prince a little less likely to murder some other journalist abroad or at home within Saudi Arabia.

O`DONNELL: Nicholas Kristof, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

KRISTOF: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: --without your friend Jamal in this very, very important turning point - to what I hope is a turning point in this story. Thank you.

KRISTOF: I hope it`s accountability.

O`DONNELL: When we come back, what do we call the places where President Trump is now locking up children and men and women at the southern border? That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: What do you call them? That was the question that I asked exactly one year ago tonight in Brownsville, Texas in front of a building where people were being held in cages.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: What do you think we should call these places? Because I`ve been in jails, I`ve been in prisons, and people want to use a phrase like detention center. There`s a kind of - it seems as though the language is being cleansed. When you have cages and when you have locks and the conditions that I`m seeing in here, these are what would be considered jails in any other setting. What would you call them?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am Jail Ministry for the Diocese of Brownsville and I`ve been assigned to minister to these children, so.

O`DONNELL: What do you think the right term is for these places?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that they`re jails. If you`re locked in a box and you can`t get out, you`re in jail. I think that anybody in that situation would feel that way.

O`DONNELL: But now, when we`re seeing these tent facilities, now we`re talking about something that actually is different from jail because it is a lower level - it is less commodious than a jail, for example. There`s no possibility of, say, air-conditioning or different things that some jails have. And so, these things start to look like camps, the kind of camps that live in infamy in our history.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re internment camps. We saw the images of those tent cities in Tornillo, those are internment camps in Tornillo.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Internment camps. So what should we call them? Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls them concentration camps and she`s not the only one who calls them that. We`re going to take a break here now, the final break of the hour. And when we come back, we will consider America`s history with concentration camps.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Just over 40 years before World War II, Spain coined the phrase in Spanish that we translated to concentration camps to describe the places where Spanish generals locked up Cuban civilians during the Cuban War of Independence. Last night, on Chris Hayes` show Andrea Pitzer, the author of "One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps," said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREA PITZER, AUTHOR, ONE LONG NIGHT: A GLOBAL HISTORY OF CONCENTRATION CAMPS: I would say that for 40 years before Auschwitz, we had concentration camps, things that were called concentration camps. What we`re doing now sits very cleanly inside that tradition.

At the same time, the death camps which were on top of the existing concentration camp system, including Auschwitz and a series of other camps in which you had gas chambers, mass killings, that is a singular moment in history.

And for the people that want to respect that, I think that`s fine and that`s important. If we want to call it irregular detention, if we want to call it extrajudicial detention, I don`t think we have to get stuck on that term. I wrote a history of the term, I had to use that term, and what I would really like people to know is the same thing is happening here now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: She believes the use of the term concentration camp is appropriate to describe the places where the Trump administration has locked up babies, toddlers, adolescents, teenagers, and adults of all ages.

And in making that point last night, Andrea Pitzer was very careful, very careful to make the crucial distinction between death camps like Auschwitz and other concentration camps that were not death camps that were being used at the very same time in Nazi Germany and other countries during World War II, including the United States.

The American concentration camps were not death camps. They were the places we used to imprison Japanese-Americans during World War II. George Takei was 5 years old when the government locked him up with his family in one of those concentration camps. Yesterday George Takei tweeted, I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America. And yes, we are operating such camps again.

The government didn`t call the places they sent George Takei, concentration camps. The government called them relocation centers. The Nazis called their concentration camps and their death camps, labor camps. China called their concentration camps, reeducation camps. Governments never call these places what they really are, but the prisoners do.

Fort Sill is an army base in Lawton, Oklahoma that was used as a concentration camp for Japanese-Americans during World War II. And now, the Trump administration is planning to lock up 1,400 children at Fort Sill because they crossed our southern border. The unifying characteristic of concentration camps around the world is they are used to lock up men, women, and children of all ages who pose no threat to the people who lock them up.

1,400 children will be locked up exactly where we locked up Japanese- Americans during World War II, a place that those Japanese-Americans called concentration camp. So what do you want to call it now? Even in concentration camps that are not deliberately designed as death camps, people die.

Some of the children we have locked up at the southern border have died, because one of the other unifying characteristics of concentration camps everywhere is that the prisoners are not treated with dignity and respect and care, the people running concentration camps are not the people you want in charge of your health care or your nutrition.

And so, people will always die in concentration camps. When Fort Sill actually locks up 1,400 children as planned next month, how many of them might die there? We don`t know. We can only hope that it is zero. Fort Sill was first used as a concentration camp during what American history books called the Indian Wars.

Native Americans had been locked up at Fort Sill for decades, by the time the great Apache leader Geronimo was brought to Fort Sill with 341 other apache prisoners in 1894. Geronimo tried to escape once, but was captured the next day. Geronimo died at Fort Sill in 1909, when he was 79 years old.  Will the next prisoner to die at Fort Sill be a child?  We hope not.

Years from now the children who Donald Trump locks up in the very same place where this government locked up Apaches and Japanese-Americans will get the last word on what history calls "the place where Donald Trump locked them up."  That is tonight`s LAST WORD.  "THE 11TH HOUR" with Brian Williams starts now.

  THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END