MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Adam Smith

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MADDOW: As the government shutdown hits its 18th day as of midnight  tonight, the president has announced he plans to give his first ever  national address from the Oval Office at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow to  talk about the border and the shutdown.

Welcome to 9:00 p.m. Eastern, Mr. President. Come on in. The water`s  fine.

As we get ready for that, there`s rising concern that the president might  decide that he might even use the speech to announce he`s declaring a  national emergency to theoretically set the stage for him to try to  reallocate existing resources from the Pentagon to try to rebuild the wall  on the southern border, even if Congress won`t appropriate any money for  that. Given the legal novelty of that kind approach, the controversy  around that kind of approach if the president decides to go that way, what  kind of a situation would that put the military in when it came to whether  or not to cough up that money and whether or not to assign active duty  soldiers to carry out orders related to that? If this emergency  declaration from the president were ultimately considered to be illegal,  would the actions of U.S. troops or officials who are ordered to carry it  out also be illegal acts?

This potential dilemma arrives at a time when things between the White  House and the military seem to be hard to figure out. In the immediate  aftermath of the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, it was not  clear whether there might be an exodus at the Pentagon following him out  the door.

Over the weekend, we learned that the chief of staff to Secretary Mattis  was resigning, Pentagon chief of staff. But now, "The Wall Street Journal"  is reporting that his resignation was not voluntarily. "The Journal" is  reporting that Kevin Sweeney did not leave the Pentagon on his own accord.  He was forced out.

Quote: The chief of staff for the Pentagon has been forced out of his post  by the defense department`s new acting head, said multiple U.S. officials.  Sweeney had worked alongside Mattis at several points during his career.  Quote: The bond was a source of concern to the White House, U.S. officials  said, adding that the appointment of Pat Shanahan as acting secretary by  President Trump last month was seen as an opportunity to remove Mr.  Sweeney.

Quote: Sweeney had expressed a desire to stay on at the Pentagon as  recently as last week. As recently as last week, and they pushed him out.  We all expected or anticipated or at least wondered if one of Mattis  leaving would be that officers and senior civilian staffers who are running  things under Mattis might go in his wake as well.

And we have seen some high level departure since Mattis left but if that`s  not the full story, if part of what`s happening now is the White House and  the new Trump appointing acting defense secretary, they`re instead going  off and picking off people at the Pentagon who are Mattis-like and getting  them out of the Pentagon behind Mattis` departure, well, that`s kind of an  entirely different dynamic, isn`t it?

Joining us is Congressman Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services  Committee.

Congressman Smith, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for being with us.  It`s nice to see you.

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thanks  for the chance, Rachel. I appreciate it.

MADDOW: So, "The Wall Street Journal" reports that the Pentagon chief of  staff didn`t resign. He was pushed. I wanted to ask your response to that  and if you`re at all concerned about senior staffing at the Pentagon in the  wake of Secretary Mattis` resignation?

SMITH: Well, I am because I`m concerned about Secretary Mattis departing  because -- I mean, we`ve all read the story. He was the adult in the room,  right? He could check some of the president`s worst impulses,
obviously  not all of them, but Secretary Mattis had so much credibility with the  military and our national security and just as a person that his word  carried a lot of weight. He has a lot of allies and friends in the  Pentagon.
And when Secretary Mattis resigned, he says he could no longer work for  President Trump, because he didn`t -- not only not agree with his  decisions. So, I think the more important part is he didn`t agree with the  way the president made them in such a chaotic, off the top of his head way  that were not well thought out and didn`t seem to have any plan behind  them.

So the last table people that are at the Pentagon, the more nervous we  should all be. Secretary Mattis leaving is a huge blow. But we need to  keep as many people there as possible to understand the way things are  supposed to work. Clearly, the president does not.

MADDOW: With the government shutdown now becoming the second longest ever  and no real end in sight, the president has announced this primetime  address to the nation as first from the Oval Office tomorrow night. How  serious do you take the sort of crescendo of discussion we`re hearing about  the president considering a declaration of an emergency so he can take  funds from the Pentagon and essentially use those funds to build his wall  or do whatever else he wants to do without Congress appropriating the money  to do so?

SMITH: Well, I take it very seriously, precisely because this president is  so unpredictable. I mean, he changes his mind depending on who talked to  him last or what story is done on Fox News. So, the fact that he might  want to do this is a distinct possibility and I think it would be a  colossal waste of money for one thing. The building a wall is not even  going to help with border security and we don`t have a border security  crisis.
So, we`re talking about $5 billion, $6 billion in this dispute that the  president has shutdown the government over. But if he`s actually going to  build this wall he keeps muttering about, it`s going to cost between $20  billion and $30 billion and if you take that much money out of the  Pentagon, and it comes specifically, the emergency clause that he`s  referencing would come specifically out of the military construction budget  in the Pentagon. This would undermine the readiness of our national  security. It would take money away from building the facilities that our troops need to be equipped and prepare for the mission we want to send them 
on and spend it on the wall.

And I think the president, you know, we`ve seen, he makes decisions like  this all the time. There`s a risk that he could do it and it would be a  huge waste of money. Now, I think he`d be subject to a court challenge  very quickly. As I understand it, this authority has been used to build  things in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Basically, once money is obligated within the Pentagon, the president can`t  decide to change it, unless he declares an emergency. So in Iraq and  Afghanistan, a few times, the presidents did that because they needed to  build something in those places in light of our troop presence there but to  do it for a wall on the southern border, where`s the emergency? I think  the courts would overturn this quickly except, of course, for the fact that  as we all know, the Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for Trump`s agenda and  they have forgotten about the fact that they`re supposed to be a judicial  branch.

So, there`s a risk they would let him get away with it and a distinct risk  that he would do it.

MADDOW: Congressman Adam Smith, new chairman of the House Armed Services  Committee -- sir, you have a big weight on your shoulders and a huge  responsibility with that new job. Thanks for talking to us tonight. I  hope you`ll come back in weeks and months ahead. I know you`ll have a lot  on your plate.

SMITH: Anytime. Thanks, Rachel.

MADDOW: Thanks very much. All right. Much more ahead tonight. Stay with  us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source