MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

Interview

MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Shuster. Joining us now is Republican congressman Adam Putnam and Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Thank you both for joining us.

You‘re on the hot seat. You were mentioned in the "Prince of Darkness‘s" own political column today. Do you feel that you were burnt when Rumsfeld was basically sacked after the president stood up for him and you stood up for him?

REP. ADAM PUTNAM ®, FLORIDA: A number of House Republicans were very frustrated by not only the timing of the sacking of Rumsfeld but the shift in rhetoric immediately after the election. A lot of us...

MATTHEWS: Did he pull the rug out from under you, the president?

PUTNAM: Yes.

MATTHEWS: What does that tell you to do now in the context of this Gonzales fiasco?

PUTNAM: Well, they‘re separate issues, but it certainly undermines the well of support for what is dripping out of the administration, and this attorney general fiasco is an example of this evolving story of whether it was performance-related or political or whatever. It‘s really not whether the president has the right to hire and fire within his administration, it‘s how they‘ve handled it since then.

MATTHEWS: Is Gonzales a cipher? Is he simply a guy that was given a really high post way above his ability by this president and then used politically by Karl Rove to move in and out U.S. attorneys? In other words, is he basically a staffer masquerading as attorney general?

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: Oh, I think that lets him off the hook too easy. I mean—and I really agree with Adam. I mean, this is HARDBALL, but I think this is not a question of whether or not the president has the right to fire or hire...

MATTHEWS: So he‘s not just the president‘s today, his stooge.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: This is...

MATTHEWS: He really is the bad guy.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Listen, he‘s at the top of the food chain, and the buck stops there. And he‘s a pretty accomplished guy. He was the White House counsel before he got there.

MATTHEWS: Yes, but he‘s—he‘s basically a retainer of the Bush family. He‘s been with the family how many hundreds of years? I mean, he looks—they took care of them. He‘s only there because of them.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: He swore the oath.

MATTHEWS: OK.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It‘s his responsibility.

MATTHEWS: So you‘re holding him accountable.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I hold him and the president accountable.

MATTHEWS: OK, what did he do wrong?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, he essentially has not just covered up the facts of what happened, but they‘ve interfered in U.S. attorneys across the country ability to pursue...

MATTHEWS: Give me an example of where he interrupted an investigation, one example.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, I can‘t give you an example of when...

MATTHEWS: That‘s the problem, isn‘t it?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No. I can‘t give you an example of when he did, but I can give you examples of members of Congress on the Republican side of the aisle and how they interfered, with phone calls, picking up the phone, asking questions, applying pressure, and then that snowballing into the attorney general executing the firing...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that this administration‘s guilty of obstructing justice?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I think that it is something that absolutely needs to be looked into because where there‘s smoke, there‘s fire.

MATTHEWS: But don‘t you have to make an accusation before there‘s an investigation? Don‘t you have to say, in the case of the California case with the investigation—or the voter fraud in Washington state or putting his buddy in there in Arkansas—don‘t you have to find some case where there was an obstruction before you have a big investigation?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: In this case, the smoke, the not answering—answering questions accurately, the trying to cover this up instead of just coming right out and saying, yes, we fired them. We have the right to fire them and we did—and the problem...

MATTHEWS: Would that have worked for you?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I would have been a lot more comfortable with them just saying, Yes, we fired them. Own up to it.

MATTHEWS: OK.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And then it‘s easier for us to say, OK, we don‘t like it, but this is what they did. But instead what they did is that they keep essentially not telling the truth about what really happened. And where there‘s smoke, there‘s fire, which makes us as Judiciary members want to ask the question...

MATTHEWS: You‘re a lawyer, right?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, I‘m not a lawyer.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Congressman...

PUTNAM: I‘m a farmer.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: That‘s probably a defense in this case. Do you believe that this administration exercised this blind justice, or it plays favorites, bringing in and out U.S. attorneys, depending on what the political purposes are in that particular district? In other words, are they moving U.S. attorneys in to create jobs for Karl Rove‘s buddy? Are they getting rid of people who are causing trouble with your party?

I mean, when I see in Washington state, with McKay up there, the U.S. attorney, says, I get a call asking me, from Harriet Miers in the White House, Why are the Republicans mad at you, the next thing I know, I‘m sacked—is that politics, as you see it, prima facie?

PUTNAM: Look...

MATTHEWS: Is that politics when you get fired after you give the wrong answer?

PUTNAM: There‘s a certain amount of politics in hiring decisions in any administration.

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m talking about performance.

PUTNAM: But some of the smoke that was referred to...

MATTHEWS: Performance decisions, not...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: We know the U.S. attorney is a plum job. We know that.

PUTNAM: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: But once you get it, should you be getting calls from the White House asking you why the Republicans, the people of your party, are mad at you?

PUTNAM: It is never appropriate for any member of Congress or the executive branch to interfere with judicial matters. Justice should be blind.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And that happened.

PUTNAM: The problem with all of this is that this evolving story of whether they were sacked because they just wanted new people or whether they were sacked for performance-related measures, all of that stuff...

MATTHEWS: Where are you at on that?

PUTNAM: ... all of that...

MATTHEWS: Where are you at on this, Congressman?

PUTNAM: ... is undermining people‘s confidence.

MATTHEWS: So where are you at? Do you believe that this smells like trouble?

PUTNAM: Oh, it stinks.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

PUTNAM: But the issue is not—we‘re in agreement. The issue is not whether the president had the right to fire those attorneys. The issue now is, frankly, this maelstrom, this that is tornado of Gonzales‘s own making, is undermining support for the policies that...

MATTHEWS: Now, let me give you...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Congressman, I just want you to give me the—hold off for a second. Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to the attorney general, who was fired—and by the way, in this administration, it‘s always the chief of staff who takes the heat for the principal. I don‘t know what this is about. Cheney‘s guy—I mean, it just keeps going down the line.

Kyle Sampson is testifying Thursday. We‘re not going to hear from Gonzales on the stand in the Senate Judiciary Committee for, like, two or three weeks now. Is this a long period of time for your party to hang fire with this guy, just let him sit there for two or three weeks?

PUTNAM: It is a long period of time. And I understand that the counsel who was supposed to testify has now said that she‘s going to take the 5th. So it further complicates...

MATTHEWS: The 5th Amendment? Or executive...

PUTNAM: The 5th.

MATTHEWS: On grounds it may tend to incriminate her.

PUTNAM: That‘s correct. So it‘s further complicating this whole issue. It is no longer about the original act, it is now about this ever-evolving story.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

PUTNAM: And frankly, it is a future distraction for the attorney general. There is no way that he‘s effectively attending to his other duties. And in my opinion, as someone who has defended the Patriot Act and defended a lot of the tools in the war on terror, it is now costing the president support.

MATTHEWS: You guys are (INAUDIBLE) Where are you from in Florida?

PUTNAM: Central Florida, Lakeland area.

MATTHEWS: I know. I was down there...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: When Jimmy Carter was campaigning, I remember going there.

It was the only big crowd he got for the last week of the election!

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Congratulations.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I just want to underscore one thing. Now that the Democrats control the Congress, there is an opportunity for us to assert the oversight that had not been asserted. And I have to tell you that, you know, although Adam and I agree on this, this is not—this is something that normally just would have been swept aside...

MATTHEWS: OK...

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... and we would have ridden it out.

MATTHEWS: This is the hope of the future right here. Thank you, Congressman Putnam, and thank you, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.

Source