HEY, WELCOME BACK!
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FOLKS, MY FIRST GUEST IS AN AUTHOR AND
EMMY-WINNING JOURNALIST WHO HOSTS "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW."
HER NEW BOOK IS CALLED "BLOWOUT."
PLEASE WELCOME BACK TO "THE LATE SHOW," RACHEL MADDOW!
♪ ♪ ♪
( CHEERS ).
>> HI!
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
>> Stephen: OKAY.
I WATCH YOUR SHOW MOST NIGHTS, BUT YOU'RE BEHIND A DESK.
>> UH-HUH.
>> Stephen: WHAT GIVES?
DID HANNITY TREE TO KNEECAP YOU?
WHAT HAPPENED HERE, RACHEL?
>> I JUST KEEP TELLING PEOPLE, "YOU OUGHT TO SEE THE OTHER
GUY."
IT'S AMAZING HOW THAT CUTS OFF ALL DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
EVERYBODY IMAGINES A DIFFERENT GUY.
>> Stephen: SURE.
>> I FELL DOWN.
I'M AN OLD PERSON NOW, AND WHEN YOU FALL DOWN YOU BREAK THREE
LIGAMENTS AND AN AVULSION FRACTURE.
WHICH MEANS THE LIGAMENT RIPS OFF A PIECE OF BONE WHILE IT'S
TEARING.
IF ANYONE OFFERS YOU AN AVULSION FRACTURE SAY NO.
I DID THIS THREE WEEKS AGO AND I'M STILL ON CRUTCH S.
>> Stephen: SURGERY?
>> NO, BUT I HAVE INCREDIBLY RIPPED ARMPIT S.
>> Stephen: YOUR LATS GET SO TIGHT.
AS I HAVE SAID TO YOU MANY TIMES BEFORE, I THINK YOU ARE
AMERICA'S PREMIERE EXPLAINER.
SOMETHING COMPLICATED GOING ON IN THE DAY, YOU COME OUT--
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
LAY THE STORY OUT LIKE PARTS ON A LAWN AND THEN YOU PUT IT
TOGETHER AND SAY, "THIS IS HOW THE ENGINE WORKS."
ARE YOU AT ALL FRUSTRATED THAT THE PRESIDENT SCANDAL IS SO
SIMPLE.
LET ME LAY OUT THE PARTS: TRUMP CALLED UKRAINE.
AND I'M DONE.
>> EXACTLY, YOU CAN'T EVEN SLEUTH YOUR WAY THROUGH IT, TOO.
BECAUSE IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THAT TRUMP CALLED UKRAINE, WHAT
WE HAD TO DO WAS ASK TRUMP, "DID YOU CALM UKRAINE?"
AND HE SAID, "YES, HERE'S THE EVIDENCE."
THERE WASN'T EVEN A WHODUNIT?
HOW CAN WE PROVE IT?
IT'S OVER.
I MEAN-- THERE IS STUFF TO EXPLAIN LIKE WHY DID THIS HAPPEN
IN UKRAINE?
AND WHY DID HE THINK HE COULD GET THAT?
AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO UKRAINE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER CONTEXTUAL STUFF I CAN MAKE LOG
SEGMENTS ABOUT IT.
BUT HE DID IT, AND NOW HE'S GOING TO BE IMPEACHED FOR IT.
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ).
>> Stephen: THAT'S INTERESTING.
THAT'S INTERESTING.
THIS IS THE FOURTH-- FOURTH IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, POSSIBLY
THE THIRD IMPEACHMENT VOTE WE'VE EVER HAD, IF IT ACTUALLY GOES TO
A VOTE, IN U.S. HISTORY.
THIS IS YOUR FIRST IMPEACHMENT AT THE RODEO.
THIS IS-- THIS IS-- THIS IS MADDOW TIME.
THIS IS YOUR SUPER BOWL, RIGHT?
BECAUSE EVERYBODY CARES ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
DO YOU-- DO YOU FEEL-- DO YOU FEEL THE AUDIENCE'S NEED FOR
THIS TO BE EXPLAINED SIMPLY EVERY DAY?
IS THIS AN EXCITING TIME TO DO YOUR JOB?
>> I DO THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN AS NEWS.
THIS IS A HUGE THING THAT NEVER HAPPENS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
AS YOU SAID, WE'VE HAD THREE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES BEFORE.
WE HAD TWO PRESIDENTS IMPEACHED, ONE IN 1868, ANDREW JOHNSON.
ONE IN THE 90s, THAT WAS BILL CLINTON.
THEY WERE BOTH IMPEACHED IN THE HOUSE AND NEVER REMOVED BY THE
SENATE.
NIXON RESIGNED.
I THINK PART OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT NOW AND WHAT I'M
ENTHUSED ABOUT IN TERMS OF PEOPLE BEING INTO IT, IS WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF HE IS IMPEACHED.
WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THAT POLITICALLY?
WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE TWO PARTIES?
WHAT DOES IT DO FOR THE NEXT ELECTION?
WE HAVE NO IDEA.
>> Stephen: MITCH McCONNELL SAYS THE SENATE RULES ARE CLEAR,
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
WHAT THAT CAN BE, CAN BE ALMOST ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S NOT
WRITTEN DOWN WHAT THAT TRIAL SHOULD BE.
EVERY TOO MANY IT'S HAPPENED, THEY KIND OF MADE IT UP AS THEY
WENT ALONG.
>> YES, AND MITCH McCONNELL HAS BEEN PERFECTLY WILLING TO
SAY, "SENATE?
WHAT SENATE?" WHENEVER THERE IS SOMETHING HE
DOESN'T WANT THEM TO ENGAGE WITH.
LITERALLY, A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DIED AND THERE WAS A
VACANCY, AND MITCH McCONNELL WAS IN CHARGE OF THE SENATE AND
HE JUST PRETENDED HE WASN'T UNTIL THERE WAS A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT SO WE COULDN'T GET A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
HE'S PERFECTLY HAPPY TO JUST NOT ACT IF NEED BE.
IN THIS CASE, WE SAID, "YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL."
I THINK THE BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT IS SO SIMPLE AND SO
INDEFENSIBLE-- YOU CAN'T GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND ASK THEM FOR
HELP AGAINST YOUR LIKELY OPPONENT IN THE NEXT ELECTION
PUP JUST CAN'T.
AND IT MAY BE THAT THE REPUBLICANS DECIDE EITHER TO
SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS OR BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSCIENCE OR
PATRIOTISM THAT THEY WANT TO BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY ON
THIS.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE DECIDING NOW.
I THINK THEY'LL DECIDE AS IT PLAYS OUT.
>> Stephen: THE INTERESTING THING TO ME IS THE WAYS IN WHICH
THE ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO THROW CHAFF UP IN THE AIR AROUND
THE STORY.
AS I SAID BEFORE, IT IS SO SIMPLE: HE CALLED UKRAINE AND
SAID, "HEY, CAN YOU DIG UP SOME DIRT IF YOU WANT THOSE JAVELIN
MISSILES."
TOILGTLY SIMPLE.
NOW THEY SAY, "THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.
WHAT IS A QUID PRO QUO?" DO YOU THINK JOURNALI JOURNALIST
REPORTERS SHOULD STOP ASKING REPUBLICANS AND CONGRESSMEN IS
THERE A QUID QUO PRO?
JUST ASKING THE LEADER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY TO INTERFERE
WITH OUR ELECTION BY DIGGING UP DIRT ON OUR OPPONENT IS THE
CRIME.
>> THE ASK IS THE CRIME.
AND IF THIS WERE BEING PROSECUTEDDA AS CRIME, YOU WOULD
NOT-- ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE IS YOU WERE TRYING TO
SOLICIT THIS THING OF VALUE TO USE IN YOUR CAMPAIGN.
YOU DON'T ACTUAL SHE TO GET IT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROMISE TO TRADE SOMETHING FOR IT.
IT'S DONE.
>> Stephen: I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS JOURNALISTS, ARE THEY
FALLING INTO A TRAP BY ACCEPTING THAT CRITERIA OF QUID PRO QUO IN
THE QUESTIONING OF SENATORS.
WHO KNOW?
THAT'S DIDN'TABLE?
WHERE AT THE HEART OF IT, IT IS NOT DIDN'TABLE ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED.
>> IT'S LIKE DEBATING THE INTERIOR ARGUMENT OF GIULIANI.
YOU SAID YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT BIDEN AND THEN YOU ADMITTED--
LIKE, RUDY GIULIANI SAYS THINGS.
YOU CAN JUST PUT IT IN A FILE, AND THEN SET IS ASIDE.
YOU DON'T NEED TO ENGAGE WITH IT INTERNALLY.
THERE'S A LOT THAT THEY'RE DOING--
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
FACTUAL INFORMATION.
>> Stephen: IT'S TO CREATE, AS AINSLEY WAS SO EASILY CONFUSED,
TO CREATE THE IDEA THERE IS SOMETHING CONFUSING AROUND A
SIMPLE STORY.
YOU HAVE BARR GOING TO ITALY.
YOU HAVE GIULIANI GOING GOD KNOWS WHERE.
YOU HAVE POMPEO BEING ON THE PHONE, POMPEO GOING TO ITALY.
ARE THESE POLITICAL SACRIFICIAL LAMBS.
LET ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THEM BECAUSE THAT'S JUST ORDINARY
BADNESS.
THAT'S NOT THIS EXTRAORDINARY BADNESS.
THE BADNESS THAT HAPPENS TO THEM IS JUST, AGAIN, MORE CHAFF, MORE
THINGS TO TALK ABOUT OTHER THAN THE CORE ISSUES.
>> I THINK GIULIANI IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN POMPEO
AND BARR.
I THINK GIULIANI IS OUT THERE TO BE THE HEEL AT THIS POINT.
"OH, THE PRESIDENT SAID SOMETHING OUTRAGEOUS?
I'LL SAY SOMETHING 10 TIMES AS OUTRAGEOUS AND I'LL HAVE MY
PANTS HALF OFF."
HE'S WILLING TO BE THE SORT OF HEAT FIELD FOR THE PRESIDENT?
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO RUDY GIULIANI?
>> Stephen: HE'S GOING TO BURN UP ON IMPACT.
( APPLAUSE ) ( CHEERS )
>> BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE THE KIND
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES.
WE HAVE PUT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL IN PRISON IN THE PAST IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR PARTICIPATING IN PRESIDENTIAL SCHEMES FOR WHICH
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF WAS NOT GOING TO BE IMPRISONED.
IF POMPEO AND BARR WERE PARTICIPATING IN THIS AND,
ULTIMATELY, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TTHEY'RE
NOT ONLY IN MORAL TROUBLE.
THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN REAL ETHICAL AND LEGAL TROUBLE.
AND I THINK THAT MATTERS TO BOTH OF THEM.
AND SO THEY CAN'T BE AS CAVALIER AS GIULIANI IS BEING IN TRYING
TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK THEY'LL TAKE IT SO FAR, BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY BOTH OF
THEM WILL FIND THEIR OWN NECKS AT RISK HERE.
>> Stephen: WE HAVE TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK.
BUT WHEN WE COME BACK I'LL ASK RACHEL WHAT STORIES ARE MISSING
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT BROUHAHA.