MSNBC Hardball - Transcript

MSNBC  

SHOW: HARDBALL 19:00

BYLINE: Chris Matthews; David Shuster; Frank Luntz

GUESTS: Duf Sundheim; Bob Dornan; Laurel Erickson; Zachary Coile; Frank Lautenberg; Mitch Mcconnell; Ed Gillespie; Howard Fineman; Lawrence O'Donnell; Terry McAuliffe; Peggy Noonan; Ben Stein; Tom McClintock; Bo Derek; Arnold Schwarzenegger

HIGHLIGHT:
HARDBALL debate: Should McClintock bow out of the California recall election? In the "Political Buzz," a look at the polls and what they reveal about the election.

BODY:
MATTHEWS: That was NBC's David Gregory in Cincinnati with the president. Senator Frank Lautenberg is a Democrat from New Jersey. Senator Mitch McConnell is a Kentucky Republican.

Gentlemen, today President Bush pledged to cooperate fully with the probe and called for anyone with information on who blew the cover of a CIA operative to come forward. Let's have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have told our administration, people in my administration, to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth and if anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Let's go to Senator Lautenberg right now. Senator Lautenberg, would you like the president to find out who did this rather than have to have a special prosecutor named?

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: Well, I don't think the president wants to find out who did it. As a matter of fact, I am not accusing him of leaking anything, but I am accusing the administration of trying to have this go away. That's their favorite tactic, is bob and weave when they are in a pinch like this.

MATTHEWS: Senator McConnell, do you think the president would be well advised to just jam the staff for the next 48 hours and say, who did it, because the last thing you guys want, it seems to me, in the White House or anybody lower than the president politically is a choice between an independent council and year of yapping by the Democrats who didn't appoint one.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, of course, we got rid of the independent council statute. Nothing on a bipartisan basis, everybody thought that statue was disaster and we let it expire back in 1999 after the Clinton impeachment. It is possible, however, to have a special council, and what's happening here is the investigation is being handled exactly right.

The career professionals down at the Justice Department who are incorruptible and not subject to being manipulated by either side are in the process of initiating this investigation, which your setup piece just announced, and it is being handled exactly right. And if the bureaucrats down there, the career professionals, believed that a special council is warranted, they will recommend that to the attorney general, and I don't have a doubt in my mind that he will go along with it.

But let's let them have their investigation. This is a way that it's supposed to be handled under the law.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But, politically, why doesn't the president do the investigating and get it over with?

MCCONNELL: Because he's not...

MATTHEWS: That's what I don't understand.

MCCONNELL: Because he is not a criminal investigator. He's the president of the United States...

MATTHEWS: Well, doesn't he have a chief of staff? If someone in your office leaks something, wouldn't you call everybody in and find out who did it? You wouldn't call the Justice Department, you would find out who did if, wouldn't you?

MCCONNELL: This is precisely the way the law outlines that this kind of allegation is to be handled. The people in the White House, apparently, according to your setup piece, are denying there was any leak.

MATTHEWS: How do they deny it. Let me go to Senator Lautenberg. If the president hasn't undertaken an investigation by his staff and there is no evidence since this story ran in the Novak column in July 14th, there's been no evidence of any investigation over there and no tribunal, how do we know -- why hasn't the president told his staff -- gone around door to door and found out who did it? I don't understand.

LAUTENBERG: Therein lies the problem. The fact of the matter is that the attorney general has suggested that he would appoint a couple people from his staff to investigate, instead of simply saying, look, I am going to appoint a special council. They will not be responsible to me on a day-to-day basis, and I will be responsible to the Congress for anything that they develop or they want to release.

And that's the cleanest way. But, what it needs is an endorsement from the president to say, let's get to the bottom of this, process be darned. It's a question of what we want the public to know and we want them to know the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I don't see that coming, I must say, Chris.

MATTHEWS: According to the Sunday's -- Go ahead, Senator.

MCCONNELL: Chris, a lot more objective way to do this is have clear professionals in justice who do not owe their jobs to either John Ashcroft or George Bush do the investigation rather than having the White House political appointees doing it. It is being handled in exactly the right way to reassure the public that the investigation is being handled properly.

MATTHEWS: But, suppose everybody...

LAUTENBERG: The president's just asked...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... in the White House clams up? What happens if they clam up at the White House and nobody says anything? How do you get to the bottom of if that way?

MCCONNELL: Why do you think they would be more likely to clam up if talking to career professionals than talking to political appointees and the president? This is exactly the way...

MATTHEWS: And you're right.

MCCONNELL: ... the law envisions it being handled. It is being handled exactly right. Everybody ought to just take a deep breath and let the investigation go forward.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you...

(CROSSTALK)

LAUTENBERG: Well, I think it needs the encouragement from the president. That's what it needs, for him to stay let's get to the bottom of this.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, gentlemen -- senators -- about this piece that ran in "The Washington Post" on Sunday. Quote: A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials -- White House officials -- called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."

"TIME" magazine: "In July, nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this" -- I'm sorry -- "and some government officials have noted to "TIME" in interviews as well as the syndicated columnist, Robert Novak, that Wilson's wife is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports."

So it seems to me there is a lot of evidence out there that it came from the White House. Do you accept the fact, Senator McConnell, that the White House leaked?

MCCONNELL: Well, what we need to do is to have the investigation by the career professionals and all of the things you cited are the reasons that there is an investigation being carried out in exactly the way it should be carried out under the law, by the career professionals who were not appointed by either the attorney general or the president of the United States. They are exactly the people that ought to have this investigation, and the allegations that you've raised are the reason the investigation is occurring.

MATTHEWS: Would you vote against an independent council being named -- special council?

MCCONNELL: Well, we got rid of that statute. The attorney general can appoint a special council and would do so if the career professionals said to him, we think that's what needs to be done.

MATTHEWS: Senator Lautenberg, what do you think needs to be done? Do you need a special council or do you trust the Justice Department?

LAUTENBERG: Well, I think the encouragement has to come from the administration at the top, from the president, to say, I want to get to the bottom of this.

MCCONNELL: He's already said that, Frank.

LAUTENBERG: And then -- yes, I already said it and I will say it again. And you keep talking about career professionals...

MCCONNELL: No. The president said that. The president said he wanted to get to the bottom of it.

LAUTENBERG: I'm sorry. Well, the fact of the matter is that the president has not issued the kind of clear command that says we want to get on with it right away. John Ashcroft has not jumped to the opportunity to appoint a special council. He's talked about hiring -- putting a couple people who work for him to work, and it is not sufficient.

I hope that we can clear this up. There's, after all, a life at stake. There is a breach of law. This is a terrible bit of conduct on the part of those who did leak, if they did. And I agree with Mitch McConnell on this point. We have to get to the bottom of it and it ought to be done in an orderly process.

MATTHEWS: How long would it take to have an orderly process, Senator McConnell, to get this over with?

MCCONNELL: Well, I think the career professionals of justice know what they're doing. And how long it takes depends upon how much evidence is there and how long it takes to sift through it. But, the fact that the attorney general has told them to go ahead with the investigation, the fact that the White House council has been notified about it, the fact that the White House council has told everybody in the White House they should cooperate, all indicates that this investigation is well under way.

MATTHEWS: Do you think, Senator McConnell, that leakers in this case -- a leaker if identified and prosecuted, should get a prison term? Do you buy that? Do you believe the law is appropriate here?

MCCONNELL: Yes. I do think the law is appropriate and they ought to get whatever the law specifies that they ought to get, which is exactly what the president said. He said he had zero tolerance for this kind of activity.

MATTHEWS: Do you agree with that, Senator Lautenberg?

LAUTENBERG: Yes. I think that they ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. We are, again, talking about a breach in conduct that is unacceptable by any standard, as outlined by George Bush, Sr. and the others who've talked about this issue over the years. It is unacceptable under any conditions.

MATTHEWS: What's the deep story here, Senator McConnell? Is there a battle going on between the CIA and White House staff, sort of a battle of leaks that's going all the way back through the Niger visit between Joe Wilson? Is there a battle here that's going on? What's the story?

MCCONNELL: Well, look. Here in the Senate what was going on is presidential politics. As to what's going on between the CIA and others, I don't know. That's why this investigation is being carried out, and obviously somebody did leak damaging material presumably, and hopefully the investigation will reveal who that is, and that person will have a serious problem.

MATTHEWS: Do you agree with that, Senator Lautenberg?

LAUTENBERG: Well, I think that Senator McConnell is talking about presidential politics for sure. Presidential politics from the White House out. That's the kind of presidential politics.

We are looking at the law. We are looking at a breach. We are looking at information that Bob Novak said he got from an administration official.

We have to get to the bottom of this and you can't disguise it by talking about career professionals or that we ought to just proceed in an orderly fashion. Quickly and orderly is what we ought to be doing right away.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you -- go ahead, Senator.

MCCONNELL: The best evidence is about presidential politics. If they offered an amendment on this subject today to a District of Columbia bill. This is all about the presidential campaign.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.