updated 7/27/2015 9:56:06 AM ET 2015-07-27T13:56:06

Date: July 24, 2015
Guest: Michael Schmidt, Rep. Elijah Cummings, Barney Frank, Zerlina
Maxwell, Matt Schlapp

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: "The New York Times" hits Hillary on the front
page. The Clinton war room fires back.

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

Today`s "New York times" grabbed readers with this front page
headline, bottom of the fold. Quote, "Criminal inquiry is sought in
Clinton e-mail use."

Well, the Clinton war room has struck back. My questions tonight,
what`s "The New York Times" got here? Is it Hillary herself being
targeted, her team? Is there really a question of criminality here?

Let`s find out from the reporter who wrote the story in "The New York
Times," Michael Schmidt. He joins us now by phone. Michael, thank you for
joining us on the story. Let me ask you this. When you had the story last
night, what justified the front page coverage?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT, "NEW YORK TIMES" (via telephone): Well, what
justified the coverage was the fact that these inspector generals who had
been looking into how the State Department was handling her e-mails and the
classified information on there had gone to the Justice Department and said
that classified information had been compromised here and there was a
national security issue.

MATTHEWS: And was this Hillary Clinton herself which "The Times"
pointed to, or was it -- was it Hillary Clinton`s staff or what we call
Hillary-land? Who was involved in what you saw as the story there?

SCHMIDT: Well, it involved the account. And we`ve actually today
have gone on and gotten some even more explicit details about what was
going on with that. The inspector general for the intelligence community
just put out a statement saying that she indeed had classified information
on the account. It was classified at the time, and, quote, "This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an
unclassified personal system." It`s because of that that they turned to
the Justice Department.

MATTHEWS: Well, this I need this to be clarified because most viewers
are probably unnerved -- enervated -- we -- we`s heard it so many times, we
don`t quite get it. Hillary Clinton -- she has used a private e-mail
account off the server out of their Chappaqua home, and that`s been known
for a while. She gave back to the government tens of thousands of e-mails
that used -- that she put through that server and put through in those e-

And that -- did she do her regular State Department business on those
personal e-mails? And if she did so, what`s new because that, I would
assume, would have been all the traffic of the State Department that she
was using the e-mail for.

SCHMIDT: Well, it was the only e-mail account that she used as
secretary of state. She did not have a state.gov account. She only relied
on that account.

MATTHEWS: So how does she move classified materials, which she would
have had her hands on all the time? How did she regularly do it?

SCHMIDT: Well, in the government, there`s sort of two systems.
There`s a classified system and an unclassified system. And a lot of
people were e-mailing her from the unclassified system.

But what happened, according to the inspector generals, is that there
was information from the intelligence community that was being passed to
her from other people that was not necessarily marked classified, but it
was indeed classified at the time, and it ended up on her -- in her e-mail.

MATTHEWS: Well, can she be blamable, then, if it was not marked
classified and it was sent by someone else? She was passive to it, even in
terms of knowledge of it being classified.

SCHMIDT: Well, she had a personal e-mail account that was operating
outside the State Department. She wasn`t inside the State Department. Her
account was outside the State Department.

MATTHEWS: How can there be criminality if there`s no knowledge that
it was classified, because you say it wasn`t necessarily -- it wasn`t
marked, and it was sent from -- if you get a letter in the mail, whether
it`s e-mail or it`s snail mail, somebody sends it to you, how can you be
responsible for that?

SCHMIDT: That`s the issue.

MATTHEWS: Criminally.

SCHMIDT: The issue here is that this is classified information that
was ending up in places that it wasn`t supposed to. and these inspector
generals turned to the Justice Department and said, Look, something --
something -- this is not the way this is supposed to operate. You need to
take a look at this.

MATTHEWS: OK, can you imagine a regular newspaper reader, like I am -
- and I read "The Times" every morning, practically every morning --
picking this up. You`d think Hillary Clinton had done something wrong --
criminal referral, something to do with her, something to do with her e-

But yet now you`re telling me this is mail she received, mail that
wasn`t marked classified. And I`m wondering where could there be even the
imagination of criminality here?

SCHMIDT: Well, there are rules and laws and regulations on how
classified information should be handled. There are ways that...

MATTHEWS: You mean she should have put a stopper on this if it came
in? Even if it wasn`t marked classified, she should have found a way of
rejecting that as if it was spam? I mean, how was she proposed to prevent
that from coming in?

SCHMIDT: But by operating her e-mail outside of the system, she
exposed herself to receiving...

MATTHEWS: OK, well, that`s the...

SCHMIDT: ... this type of information.

MATTHEWS: So in other words, she`s being charged here, you`re
referred to here over to the Justice Department, because she used her
private e-mail account, basically because that system itself made her
vulnerable to this kind of misuse by people -- of -- mishandling is the
right word -- mishandling of classified information?

SCHMIDT: Correct.

MATTHEWS: So this is -- in other words, we`re going back to story
one, way back in the beginning of the story. They`re now finally charging
her or referring to the Justice Department a possible complaint that she
used her private e-mail for official and even classified business.

SCHMIDT: Well, what they`re saying is that she had classified
information on there and...

MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s a question of looking for what they figured
they`d find because if she used the e-mail -- her own personal e-mail for
everything, it would occasionally include stuff that somebody would send to
her that wasn`t marked classified, and therefore, she wouldn`t have been
able to detect it and somehow send it back where it came from, I guess.

SCHMIDT: I guess I`d bring you back to the statement that the
inspectors general has put out when they said this classified information
should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.


SCHMIDT: I mean, that`s them. That`s the inspector generals.

MATTHEWS: Well, let`s go to them. We`re going to go right now to
Elijah Cummings and find out what he`s hearing. Thanks for that updated
report, Michael Schmidt of "The New York Times."

Hillary Clinton responded, by the way, to the big story today during a
speech in New York. Let`s watch the former secretary of state herself.


want to say a word about what`s in the news today, and it`s because there
have been a lot of inaccuracies, as Congressman Cummings made clear this
morning. Maybe the heat is getting to everybody.


CLINTON: We all have a responsibility to get this right. I have
released 55,000 pages of e-mails. I have said repeatedly that I will
answer questions before the House committee.

We are all accountable to the American people to get the facts right.
And I will do my part.


MATTHEWS: Congressman Elijah Cummings is a Democrat from Maryland and
a ranking member of the House Select Benghazi Committee (INAUDIBLE) also
the Reform committee.

Congressman Cummings, did you talk to the Clinton people this morning?
Did they urge you to get out as a surrogate on the issue?

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: No, I didn`t talk to them. I
talked to the IGs for the State Department...


CUMMINGS: ... and for the intelligence department. That`s who I
wanted to talk to because I wanted to know about what was going on. And
they made -- they were emphatic that they never -- they never requested a
criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton with regards to the usage of her
e-mails. And they made that clear.

MATTHEWS: But what about these four e-mails they`re talking about...

CUMMINGS: And by the way -- well -- well, Mr. Schmidt made an
interesting point and you shouldn`t pass by it. They made it clear that
there was no markings with regard to classification or dissemination on any
of the e-mails they reviewed.

Now, these are the folks that -- these are the IGs. And so when they
tell me that there is no -- there was no request for any kind of criminal
investigation with regard to Hillary Clinton`s e-mail usage, I have to
believe them.

MATTHEWS: So is there any effort by the IGs you talked to -- do they
admit that they sent any material over to the Justice Department for

CUMMINGS: They said they have a routine -- they had a routine
procedure that they do when they find that maybe some information that is
classified may be in the wrong hands or were misclassified. It is an
automatic thing for them to send it to the Justice Department to try to
straighten it out to make sure that people don`t have classified
information they shouldn`t have.

But keep in mind, when these -- they told me that when this
information was being transmitted by Hillary Clinton or coming to her,
there was no way for her to even know it...

MATTHEWS: Well, that sounds (INAUDIBLE)

CUMMINGS: ... that it was classified because they said emphatically
that it was not marked classified or for dissemination. So I mean, how
would she even know?

MATTHEWS: Well, how did this become a news story if it was robotic,
as you describe it, routine to the point of being almost robot-like, to
have them send over the word to the Justice Department that a candidate for
president`s e-mail is somehow the basis for some reasonable review by them
to look at it either for criminal, civil, whatever action? That`s a
serious bit of business, it seems to me. Why did they do it?

CUMMINGS: As a lawyer -- let me tell you something, Chris. As a
lawyer, when I read that, the headline at 4:00 o`clock this morning, I
mean, I couldn`t go back to sleep because I know how serious it is. That`s
why I jumped on it immediately.

Chris, keep in mind, I mean, we have gotten so far away from what we
were supposed to be doing with Benghazi. This is get Hillary Clinton by
any means necessary. Make sure you impact her so that she cannot be a
successful candidate. That`s what it`s boiling down to. And it pains me
to even say that, but I just got to call it as I see it.

MATTHEWS: Yes, I know.

CUMMINGS: And so what the news -- the news entities do, they pick up
a story and they repeat it over and over again. And as of just a few
minutes ago, the headline still says in "The New York Times" that there`s a
criminal investigation when, in fact, there`s not.

MATTHEWS: Yes, well, the question I guess to you is, do you think she
did something wrong initially by using a private e-mail account to handle
all of this official business, whether she knew particular information was
classified or not?

It seems like they`re going back to that thing again, that basic
decision, because there`s nothing here criminal in its particular intent.
It seems the very act of using the e-mail for what could have been marked
or wasn`t in this case but might some day be marked classified by someone
was itself some kind of transgression that had to be reported to the
Justice Department.

So somebody things it`s important that she be in some way, I don`t
know, reprimanded, notified, whatever, certainly reviewed by the Justice


CUMMINGS: ... over and over again -- Chris, this is not -- it doesn`t
take -- you know, this is not rocket science to figure this one out.
You`ve got a situation where leaks are put out there, inaccurate
information is put out there, incomplete information, to get the headline -
- to get the headline.


CUMMINGS: And the next thing you know, that`s what people are
thinking. And then, of course, that does not -- is not helpful to her.
But I feel very upset about this because this is not the way that we`re
supposed to operate.


CUMMINGS: It affects the credibility of our committee, by the way.

MATTHEWS: It`s always great to have you on here, sir. Thank you so
much, Elijah Cummings of the United States Congress.

Joining us right now is Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene
Robinson of "The Washington Post." Gene -- where do I begin on this?
"Senior administration -- senior government official"...

"Government official."

MATTHEWS: Government officials, to me, as a reader and a person who`s
been in journalism, seems to me not House Republicans. Could it be House
Republicans or could it...


MATTHEWS: Could it ever...


ROBINSON: You know, the House is part of the government, so sure, it
could be. But that`s not how you would generally...

MATTHEWS: But government usually means executive. It usually means

ROBINSON: That`s what you would think. Also, at our paper, "The
Washington Post," and I believe at "The New York Times," when you allow a
source to go unnamed, the policy is that you`re supposed to explain why
that source is going unnamed.

MATTHEWS: What would they have said there? They didn`t want to get
in trouble for being political because it`s a nonpolitical person?

ROBINSON: Perhaps.


MATTHEWS: I don`t know how to write it.

ROBINSON: I don`t know, but...

MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s get back to the story...

ROBINSON: But you see -- but about the story itself -- you know,
there`s a document at the heart of the story, which is the referral, the
document referring...

MATTHEWS: From the IGs to the Justice Department.

ROBINSON: ... from the IGs to the Justice Department.


ROBINSON: It is not clear to me from reading the story -- and I`ve
read it a few times -- that "The Times" has seen that document, has
actually handled it and seen that document and read it. And it is being
characterized, you know, one way by "The Times" sources as a request for
criminal investigation.

MATTHEWS: Mishandling of government...

ROBINSON: It is being...

MATTHEWS: ... documents by putting them in her private e-mail. It
allows the fact that one of -- somebody in Hillary`s camp did it. It
doesn`t say it`s her, although it alluded to the fact it was her in the
first go-round, and whether it`s criminal or not, is the word that grabbed


MATTHEWS: Criminal.

ROBINSON: You know, criminal is a big word. But it seems to me if
you`re going to write a story that has a document, a single document at its
heart, if you haven`t been able to see the document and you`re relying on
sources to tell you what it says and to characterize it, then you ought to
give readers a clear shot at that fact, at least, that, you know...


MATTHEWS: Has this story got legs in the big papers tomorrow?

ROBINSON: Well, here`s what has legs, is the fact that -- you know,
Hillary Clinton did run a private e-mail server, right, and then -- and
turned over a bunch of e-mails, but has apparently wiped the server clean.
And I think there will always be questions about that. You know, why did
she do that?

But this specific story, you know, it kind of depends. At some point,
one hopes, we actually get to see the document. And then we`ll know
whether it`s...

MATTHEWS: Well, "The Times"...

ROBINSON: ... just a routine thing or not.

MATTHEWS: ... has got the heat on it. The heat`s on "The Times."
I`m sure "The Washington Post" is going to be looking at this tomorrow.

ROBINSON: I`m sure.

MATTHEWS: I`ll be looking to see what page it`s on. If it`s on the
front page, I`ll know there`s legs. Anyway, thank you, Gene Robinson.

Coming up -- if you caught my HARDBALL interview last night with Ted
Cruz, you heard how obvious he was pushing Bernie Sanders. Many on the
right are out there trying to build up Bernie to help take down Hillary
Clinton. Former U.S. congressman Barney Frank says progressives shouldn`t
fall for it. He joins us next here live.

And the day of a weekly -- a deadly shooting now at the Louisiana
movie theater. President Obama says the area where he`s most frustrated
right now as president, most stymied, is on that issue of guns.

And in the week when Donald Trump got the headlines, a lot of other
Republicans had their turn driving the clown car, including Marco Rubio,
who`s doubled down on his cheap shot that President Obama has "no class."

Finally, some Republican insiders are pushing the idea that Donald
Trump has already hit his peak, but that may well be -- I think it is --
wishful thinking.

Anyway, this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.




CLINTON: We each run our own campaigns. And I always knew this was
going to be competitive, but I want to have a great debate in the primary
and caucuses around the country, and that`s what I`m looking forward to.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. When Hillary Clinton was asked
earlier this month about her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, she said
she expects the race to be competitive. Well, now in an op-ed piece in
Politico magazine this week titled "Why progressives shouldn`t support
Bernie," former congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts makes the case
that Democrats should get behind Hillary Clinton early.

"A long primary campaign will only erode the benefit Democrats are now
poised to reap from the Republicans` free-for-all." Here he says again, "I
am convinced that a prolonged pre-nomination debate about the authenticity
of Clinton`s support for progressive policy stances will do us more harm
than good."

Recent national polling, by the way, shows Clinton well ahead of
Senator Sanders at this point, 63 to 14 among Democrats across the country.
But the latest poll out of New Hampshire, which was last conducted in June,
showed Sanders within striking distance of Clinton in that key primary
state at 35 percent to Secretary Clinton`s 43 percent.

I`m joined right now by longtime Congressman Barney Frank.

Congressman, thank you for joining us.


MATTHEWS: Everybody wants to know what you think about this, because
you`re sort of a pretty well-known liberal by the old terminology.

The new terminology, the word progressive is used everywhere from --
it used to be Teddy Roosevelt, a bit to the right of liberal. Now it`s all
the way to the left of liberal. What is the difference between a
progressive and a socialist, as you think it through, or is there still a
distinction we can draw?

FRANK: Well, there`s a difference between a progressive and a

Look, socialism is a very respected intellectual view of the economy.
I happen to disagree with it, because I really do believe that the free
market, the capitalist system is the best producer of wealth, but I do
believe that it needs to be strongly regulated to how it`s conducted and
what you do to distribute it.

Bernie Sanders has made a very important choice, to be the outsider
within the system. For more than, what, 30 years, he has stressed two
things, first of all, that he was not a Democrat. And he has pointed out
to the integrity of that position, that not being a member of a party was a

And, secondly, he voted with the Democrats in the Congress, but always
stressed that he wasn`t a member of the party. Secondly, he defied this
American aversion to the world socialism by proclaiming himself to be a
socialist. Both of those are entirely legitimate positions.

My problem is that, having staked out this outsider position, it`s
kind of hard to pivot instantly now from being an independent socialist to
being just a progressive Democrat. That is only a problem because, if we
have this primary campaign -- and here`s what I`m afraid of -- Hillary
Clinton has taken very strong liberal positions, progressive positions,
whatever you want to call them.

I`m afraid there are people who are going to say that she`s only doing
that because Bernie Sanders spooked her into it. That`s not accurate, but
inaccuracy is not a barrier to things being accepted. And what you will
see is the Republicans saying, aha, we knew Clinton didn`t really stand for
anything serious, and she`s now just trying to win over the votes from that
socialist. That`s inaccurate, as I said, but very damaging.

MATTHEWS: Well, we got some evidence of that from last night`s show.
You made the point that Republicans are speaking favorably of Sanders as a
way to undercut Clinton. They really are. Republicans believe boosting of
Sanders` candidacy is their only way to prevent Clinton emerging as the
nominee with broad early support in the process, strengthening her
positioning in November.

They`re correct. One clear result of a long Clinton-Sanders
nomination contest would be that some of her vulnerabilities will accrue to
her -- his vulnerabilities will accrue to her. Well, we witnessed that
very strategy in action on HARDBALL last night, Congressman.

Here`s Republican Senate candidate and Senator from Texas Ted Cruz
boosting self-described socialist Bernie Sanders. Here he is going at it.


virtually all of them, are supporting this cronyism and corporate welfare.
The one person who`s standing up strong is Bernie Sanders. This is an
issue where Bernie and I are in complete agreement.

MATTHEWS: Is that a strategy on the right, to build up Bernie

CRUZ: Well, I have said for a long time I like and respect Bernie

MATTHEWS: Well, yes, but you`re building him up.

CRUZ: Because he`s honest, he`s candid.

MATTHEWS: You just did it. You took an opportunity for a callout
there to build him up.

What is the strategy to build up Bernie Sanders from the right-wing

You`re right-wing, now that we`re identifying each other.

CRUZ: Chris...


CRUZ: Chris, what I...


CRUZ: I respect honesty in politics.


CRUZ: Bernie admits he`s a socialist.

I`m enjoying watching Hillary Clinton explain to the voters how she is
just as much of a socialist as Bernie Sanders.

Bernie is being honest about this and I wish both...


CRUZ: ... politicians in the Democrat...

MATTHEWS: You are building him up.

CRUZ: ... and Republican Party.

MATTHEWS: I mean, you`re getting so enthusiastic. I know what you`re
up to. It`s called troublemaking.

Well, you`re a Bernie Sanders Republican, from what I have heard

But thank you for coming on.

I understand entirely the strategy you`re up to.


MATTHEWS: Congressman Frank, I think you were the prophet of reality
here. I think this guy is out there doing it. I don`t know if it`s
conspiratorial. But they seem to be enjoying -- they`re trying -- it seems
to me -- you`re the expert -- I think they`re trying to gin up on the
Democratic side the kind of two-fisted free-for-all, whatever, that you`re
seeing on the Republican side with Trump.

FRANK: No question.

Look, I almost sympathize with some of these Republicans. Getting
into a debate with Donald Trump, it`s like trying to make Shakespeare while
Moe, Curly and Larry are your supporting cast.


FRANK: And it`s hard to look good in that.

But there`s no reason for us to try to minimize our advantage. Look,
and I don`t understand why some of my friends on the left, and where I am,
don`t see what happened to Mitt Romney. The fact is that Mitt Romney sent
much of the campaign proving his conservative bona fides to his And Base.
That weakened him for the final election.


FRANK: And I don`t see any point in us having that with Hillary

Look, if we knew for sure we could win, that her liberal positions
were overwhelmingly popular, we could afford the kind of debate over
nuance. But weakening her campaign -- and, by the way, money is the key
factor here. We know they`re going to greatly outspend us. Why force her
to spend most of her money between now and May or June on again proving
that she always has been for what she always has been?

And that`s the other point, this view that she`s too moderate. She
was a big liberal in the Clinton administration. Paul Krugman documented
during the `08 campaign that she was to Barack Obama`s left on domestic
issues. She`s been -- this notion that she`s somehow been this secret
moderate has no evidence.

But the Sanders candidacy will allow people to interpret her sticking
with a position she`s already has as somehow, as you got Cruz to
acknowledge, a move by her to preempt the socialist.

MATTHEWS: Yes. It`s great having you on, former Congressman Barney
Frank of Massachusetts.

FRANK: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Thank you, sir.

Coming up, President Obama says his biggest frustration in office has
been an inability, his inability to pass gun safety laws, this on the same
day that a gunman opens fire in a Louisiana movie theater.

And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Well, we`re following the latest developments from last night`s movie
theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana. And here`s what we know. Two
people were killed, nine injured when 59-year-old John Russel Houser opened
fire 20 minutes into the screening of `Trainwreck." He shot off 13 rounds
from a .40-caliber handgun. It`s a semiautomatic. And he later shot
himself dead.

The victims were 33-year-old Julian -- or Jillian Johnson and 21 year-
old Mayci Breaux. Houser had a criminal history and was described as
having a history of mental health problems as well, including manic
depression and bipolar disorder, according to court records from 2008.

I`m joined right now by NBC`s Craig Melvin.

Craig, you`re down there at another trouble spot. This is not a
racial incident. This is an incident of, what, mental illness, gun safety?
What is the aspect of this that you can figure for a national audience?

CRAIG MELVIN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: You know what, Chris, I think it`s
probably a little bit of both.

And the folks that we have talked to here have said as much, law
enforcement and local elected officials. I mean, here you have a guy who,
back in 1989, 1989, we uncovered some documents that shows he was charged
with trying to hire a third party to set fire to an attorney`s office.

And then you fast forward. Several years after that, there was a
criminal domestic violence complaint. He wasn`t charged. Police show up
at his house. His wife says that he`s supposed to be taking medication for
a mental illness. He`s supposed to be taking the medication, doesn`t take
the medication every day. He doesn`t eat like he`s supposed to, which
exacerbates that condition.

He was denied a concealed carry permit because of that criminal
domestic violence complaint and the arson charge.


MELVIN: So you have got a picture that is emerging of a guy who, you
take a few steps back and you say, wow, we probably should have seen this
coming. We probably should have seen this coming.

I talked to an associate of his earlier on the air who said that he
was quick-tempered, he was political. In fact, he ran for office a couple
times in Columbus, Georgia. Also in Georgia, he owned a bar at one point.
Local sheriff in LaGrange, Georgia, local deputy says that they had to shut
down the bar because of some violations.

So, he shows back up and hangs a banner with a swastika on the side of
the bar so large that you could see it from the main roadway. That`s the
kind of guy that we`re looking at here, Chris.

MATTHEWS: OK, Craig, it`s always great to have you. You have got all
the trouble spots to cover. Thanks so much, NBC`s Craig Melvin down in
Lafayette, Louisiana.

Anyway, the topic of gun violence has been on President Obama`s mind.
Here is what he told the BBC in an interview conducted yesterday before the


been the one area where I feel that I have been most frustrated and most
stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one
advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient commonsense gun
safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings.

And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something
that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working
on in the remaining 18 months.


MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by Huffington Post politics editor Sam
Stein. He`s also an MSNBC contributor.

Sam, every time one of these things happen, I just go, you know, it`s
a pressure world out there, a lot of competition in life. Everybody
doesn`t have the same competence to deal with these situations. They have
mental, emotional problems. This is another one. I don`t know if it means
much politically, except when I heard about the swastika.

SAM STEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, but if you look, we`re not -- the
United States is not like the capital of mental problems. Every country
has citizens with mental problems and crazy...


MATTHEWS: But they`re not armed.

STEIN: But they`re not armed.

And so we talk about, for instance, censoring video games, right?
Like, that`s something that comes up all the time in one of these. We
don`t play -- we aren`t the only ones who play violent video games in the
world. A lot of countries play violent video games in the world. So the
idea here, the constant theme throughout these things...


MATTHEWS: By the way, we`re a violent country if we didn`t have guns.
Have you seen those statistics?


MATTHEWS: The number of people that kill each other without -- using
ovens, whatever, they drive over people, it`s an amazingly violent country.


MATTHEWS: But gun control, we`re getting to it, gun safety.

STEIN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: This guy tried to get a carrier license.



MATTHEWS: He couldn`t get one. The law was there. And I think NRA
people, gun rights people, Second Amendment people would people say, wait a
minute, the law is there. It stopped him, but he gets the gun the way any
criminal gets a gun, criminally.


And they point out, rightfully, that Chicago, for instance, has
incredibly tough gun laws, some of the toughest in the nation. But every
weekend, we hear about massive amounts of gun violence in that city killing
tons of people.


MATTHEWS: You can drive from Chicago to other areas of the country
and get guns.


STEIN: Because there are no borders when it comes to getting a gun.


STEIN: So people in Chicago can go to Indiana, for instance.

So when you talk to gun control advocates, when you say what is the
solution to this, they say you need to really button up the shortcomings
here. You need to tighten the system. You need to have more sharing among


STEIN: Maybe more screening before someone can purchase a gun. But
you won`t have a full, safe system regardless of the...


MATTHEWS: This is a probably powerful gun, a pretty useful gun. It
was a .40-caliber semiautomatic. It had 13 rounds that he fired. So, he
was able to fire off a lot of rounds, including the one he killed himself
with, without ever reloading.

STEIN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: And that`s a lot of firepower in your hands.

STEIN: And when we were having the post-Newtown debate, we spent a
lot of time looking at the size of magazines, as well as the automatic and
semiautomatic guns.

MATTHEWS: He knew what he wanted, didn`t he?

STEIN: The truth of the matter is, is that the vast majority of
violence happens in this country happens because of handguns, basically.


STEIN: But the mass shootings are -- tend to be the more headline-
grabbing ones.

MATTHEWS: Well, he knew what he wanted. He went out and bought it
somehow, illegally, and did the purpose, met the purpose he wanted. He
wanted to kill people.

STEIN: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: And he planned to get away.

STEIN: That`s the creepiest part, is that he wanted to get away. It
was only when he was engulfed by police that he ended up shooting himself.

But what happens when he gets away, if he gets away? Does he go on
another violent rampage? Figuring out where it ends is what kind of..


MATTHEWS: First-responders.

Thanks so much, Sam Stein. Good reporting and analysis.

We will be right back.



New information now in that breaking story out of Los Angeles. The
bomb squad is now investigating a suspicious device outside a bank in
Studio City. You`re looking at pictures from just moments ago of the bomb
squad robot carrying what we`re told is some sort of water bottle that
police describe as a suspicious device.

It follows what police have been calling an active shooting situation.
Law enforcement sources tell NBC News that a suspect began acting
erratically and said that he had an explosive device. That suspect was
shot by police outside the bank. The area has been evacuated until that
device can be investigated -- now back to HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Donald Trump has been driving the clown car the last couple weeks when
it comes to the 2016 elections, of course, but that doesn`t mean he`s alone
in that clown car. Trump`s antics have overshadowed some truly clownish
performances of late.

Let`s start with Marco Rubio. On Wednesday, he said President Obama
had no class. On FOX News last night, he was asked if he stood by that
assessment. They also played him a clip of how I reacted to his words.


president now that has no class.

MATTHEWS: You know, that`s the kind of slur -- that`s not a political
charge -- that`s a slur against a man, against a president. And this
sleazy comment that he has no class, what does that mean?

I would like to get him under sodium pentathol and say, buster, what
do you mean by no class? What do you mean by that? And find out what he
does mean. It`s a cheap slur that works with the cheap seats in the
Republican Party.

RUBIO: Well, I have said repeatedly, Barack Obama, I think, is a
great husband and a great father.

But I do believe the way he`s conducted his presidency has been
divisive. I think he unnecessarily demonizes his opponents on policy
issues. In essence, it`s not that there`s a disagreement on policies. He
actually wants to convince people that you are a bad person.

QUESTION: You stand by that statement? The president has no class?

RUBIO: I think, in the way he`s conducted himself in the presidency
on some of the major issues of our time, he has not conducted himself with
the dignity worthy of that office.


MATTHEWS: For more on this and other clownish moments, I`m joined by
tonight`s roundtable, David Corn, he`s Washington bureau chief for "Mother
Jones", and MSNBC political analyst. Zerlina Maxwell is the contributor to
"Essence" magazine, and Matt Schlapp is a Republican strategist.

What did you make of the comment? Were you as put off by it as I was?

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: I thought it was --

MATTHEWS: No class.

CORN: I thought your word was correct. I hate to agree with you, but
cheap. A cheap shot.

The thing is, it comes on the same day in which he`s appearing with
John Kerry, the Senate foreign relations committee talking about the Iran
deal, and Marco Rubio is making this charge that because of the Iran deal,
the U.S. will now be obligated, forced to defend Iran from any attack on
its nuclear facilities.

PolitiFact called this completely false. This is a right wing talking
point --

MATTHEWS: You mean, we`re going to fight Israel?

CORN: Yes, we`re going to fight -- that was his argument in all
seriousness. So, he`s out there -- if he wants to have a classy debate
about the Iran deal, this is not the way to do it. So, he is just playing
to the far party base.

MATTHEWS: It`s hawkish, too. His big supporters have hawkish, too, I
assumed. Don`t you think?

ZERLINA MAXWELL, ESSENCE: Oh, yes. I also think the idea that the
president has no class or that he has been divisive when Mitch McConnell in
the beginning of the presidency said out loud we`re going to try to block
the president, I just think that doesn`t ring clue.

MATTHEWS: You can be divisive and still have class like me.


MATTHEWS: Anyway, Senator Rubio said he was referring to President
Obama`s demonizing political opponents when he said he had no class, but
that`s not what he originally said. The slur came up actually in the
context of Donald Trump`s presidential campaign and why Trump shouldn`t be
elected, he said.


RUBIO: We already have a president now who has no class. We have a
president now who does selfie stick videos, that invites YouTube stars
there, people that eat cereal out of a bathtub, that accuses his -- you
just saw the interview he did right now where he goes on comedy shows to
talk about something as serious as Iran, the list goes on and on.

It is important for us to have a presidency that restores dignity and
class to the White House.


MATTHEWS: He`s going on "Fox and Friends" to talk about you shouldn`t
go on fun shows. "Fox and Friends" is a good, pleasant way to start the
day, but it`s not the highest possible level of journalistic insight. You

Rubio`s second answer. I think let`s keep it on the politics. David
brings up the Iran deal.

Here`s what we should all be talking about. We have serious issues
that our country is facing. When I think about the invectives that get
thrown out in politics, I go back to `08 with the Obama, Bill Clinton and
Hillary Clinton. She said Barack Obama is running a campaign out of the
Karl Rove book. She called it deceptive.

She went after him pretty hard. So, we shouldn`t have a double
standard. There should be --

MATTHEWS: It`s referring to someone`s background or their character.
You have to be very careful about that stuff.

SCHLAPP: I agree.

MATTHEWS: You have a wrong side of the tracks thing, something base
about the guy. It does get ethnic. Not always, not always, so there`s
sort of playing to that crowd who are ethnic.

CORN: But he is playing to a crowd that has believed from the
beginning that Barack Obama is not a legitimate president. That because of
his birth, because of his secret socialism Muslim views, whatever it may
be, this is --


MATTHEWS: Look, he does have a certain situation.

SCHLAPP: That`s too far, too. Let`s not go there. They have a
disagreement with him on all of these policies.

They think he`s a political left winger and a radical. That`s fair.
They should be able to go there.


CORN: But not to say he`s illegitimate, that he doesn`t believe in

MATTHEWS: He`s not saying -- I`m talking about the people in the
audience. The woman who says he`s an Arab and stuff like that. A lot of
them in the audience, they`re not all candidates, but the candidates know
how to talk to them. They talk to that rabble out there, that hates him
because of what he looks like, what his name is, the whole deal.

SCHLAPP: That`s true on both sides.

MATTHEWS: What charges have the Democrats made?

SCHLAPP: You don`t think there`s any Democrats that make charges that
go too far?

MATTHEWS: On ethnicity, background?

SCHLAPP: Absolutely.


SCHLAPP: How about Barack Obama sent out from his campaign about the
Mormonism of Mitt Romney? What about those? Did we ever criticize those?

MATTHEWS: I didn`t know about those.

MAXWELL: I didn`t know about those, either.

SCHLAPP: They talked that Obama was a good Christian family man, and
the message was clear, which is he`s running against a guy that maybe

MATTHEWS: Mormons are Christians.

MAXWELL: I do remember the birth certificate though.


CORN: It was a birther thing that went on for quite a while.

MATTHEWS: I started in politics with an LDS guy, both of them, Frank
Moss and Wayne Owens. I`m with them, OK?

Anyway, next stop, in all liberal Democrats, anyway, strange video.
Here`s Mike Huckabee`s campaign posting to its Vine site. A twisted mash-
up of a classic Disney movie and nuclear annihilation. Let`s take a look


SUBTITLE: "Hakuna Matata" is not a strategy. Reject evil. Stop Iran.




MATTHEWS: They`re accusing the president and John Kerry, you know,
and Jack Lew, all the rest, to try to negotiate a difficult deal. It`s a
good debate, whether it`s good or bad for us, but was that Hakuna Matata?
Were they whistling and enjoying themselves? Tell me why.

SCHLAPP: It means don`t worry, Chris. And, look, the Huckabee
campaign is trying to use one of these new online tactics and they threw
out a video.

MATTHEWS: Who is saying don`t worry?

SCHLAPP: He`s saying that John Kerry and Barack Obama --

MATTHEWS: That`s why they spent weeks and months and years trying to
put together a deal, because they`re not worried?

SCHLAPP: No, no, when you hear that this means Iran will now get
closer to a nuclear weapon --

CORN: They won`t.

SCHLAPP: Exactly. So, David agrees that we shouldn`t worry. I think
we should worry.

CORN: Wait a second.

MATTHEWS: I worry about everything.

MAXWELL: I worry when people running for president are using cartoon
ads talking about nuclear weapons.

MATTHEWS: This is Lou Schwartz all over again. You know it.

CORN: I want to know, is this classy? Is this classy?

SCHLAPP: I`m not 25 years old. I don`t know how this works.

CORN: You talked about having a good policy debate over this issue.
Is this how you do it?

MATTHEWS: The political advantage of sending Obama over to Africa,
and the very week he`s in Africa. I don`t think it`s serious. It happens
to be a coincidence.

The roundtable is standing with us.

Up next, Republicans pushing the idea that -- the insiders pushing it.
Talk about wishful thinking. Oh, he`ll be going away in a couple weeks.
Did they predict three weeks ago he`s going to be where he is now?

No, don`t listen to predictors. We don`t know how long Trump is going
to fly up there.

This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: There is an outburst on capitol hill this morning from
Senator Ted Cruz when he accused Mitch McConnell of lying about a deal on a
vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Let`s watch.


SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: It saddens me to say this. I sat in my
office, I told my staff. The majority leader looked me in the eye and
looked 54 Republicans in the eye. I cannot believe he would tell a flat-
out lie.

And I voted based on those assurances that he made to each and every
one of us, what we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not
only what he told every Republican senator but what he told the press over
and over and over again was a simple lie.


MATTHEWS: I`ve never seen that before working on the Hill for years.
Anyway, McConnell`s office had no comments on Cruz`s remarks.

And we`ll be right back.


MATTHEWS: We are back with the roundtable, David, Zerlina and Matt.

Well, Donald Trump was one gear, attack. He`s made the press the
prime focus of that campaign. Let`s watch him.


REPORTER: The Pew Research, which is independent.

very naive person.

REPORTER: If your research says for immigrants on the whole --

TRUMP: Come on, try getting it out. Try getting it out.

REPORTER: I`ll get it out.

TRUMP: I mean, I don`t know if you are going to put this on
television, but you don`t know what you are talking about.

You keep bringing up negative. You only want to talk about negative.
Why don`t you bring up positive polls?



TRUMP: Let me tell you, the people don`t trust you, the people don`t
trust the media.

That`s a typical case of the press with misinterpretation. They take
a half a sentence --


They take a half a sentence -- by the way, they take a half a sentence
and they take a quarter of a sentence, they put it altogether, the typical

And you`re with Telemundo, and Telemundo should be ashamed.

I want to thank -- no, no, you are finished. You have obviously been
groomed --

REPORTER: Are you suggesting that John McCain did something to lead
to his capture?

TRUMP: Of course not.

REPORTER: Why did you say what you said?


TRUMP: Go back to being a pundit. Go back to being a pundit.

You have Kasie Hunt there, who never reports accurately, by the way.


TRUMP: And you had Katy Tur -- no, it`s true. You had Katy Tur.
They didn`t explain what took place there because that was happening
yesterday in Laredo, that was absolutely a happening.


MATTHEWS: I don`t know where you go with that one. I want to start
with you.

MAXWELL: Ii just think that he`s driving the clown car. You are
right about. That I think you are also right that this is going to last
and last because he is, what he is saying resonates with some part of a
significant portion of the Republican base. And he is leading in the
polls, no one predicted that. This harkens back to 2012 when Herman Cain
led at a certain point. I think there are certain people in the Republican
base who are dissatisfied --

MATTHEWS: How about simple human levity? And simple human --
obviously, I like a lot of people he`s attacking. But they`re not going to
get hurt by it.

It`s kind of like-- it`s entertaining, how would you like listening to
that mush mouth when Republican said, who say nothing.

CORN: It`s beyond entertaining.

MATTHEWS: I guess we can talk about infrastructure. I believe it,
but it`s not entertaining.

CORN: No, it`s not. I think one out of four, one out of five, one
out of six Republicans --

MATTHEWS: So, it takes right now --

CORN: No, no, they want a venter in chief. They still are upset
about Obama becoming president. They feel they`ve lost control of the
country mad as hell, not going to take it anymore. It doesn`t matter what
Donald Trump says. It doesn`t matter --

MATTHEWS: It does matter. I think you`re underestimating.

CORN: No, no, it doesn`t --

MATTHEWS: He`s hitting targets.

CORN: It doesn`t matter whether they agree fully with what he says,
how he says it.

MATTHEWS: He`s narrowing it down.

CORN: He`s taking on everybody.

MATTHEWS: Help me out here, Matt. He`s attacking the media.

SCHLAPP: That`s right.

MATTHEWS: It concerns the most, that`s why I like FOX and the under
water walrus, on noon time on radio. They hate the liberal media.

SCHLAPP: It`s not just that. He is also going after other people,
even in his own party like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are not fan
favorites of conservatives. He went after "The Des Moines Register" --

MATTHEWS: Because they`ve been around forever, and they have to
change the world.

SCHLAPP: That`s right. The people that are doing well in the
Republican nominating process are running against Washington, D.C. They
think it`s broken. They`re tired of these people.


MATTHEWS: It always worked.

SCHLAPP: Well, it`s particularly working now. Ronald Reagan did an
effective job of doing it was well.

By the way, I think Bernie Sanders is doing that on the other side,
too. He`s basically looking at Hillary Clinton --

MATTHEWS: Are you going to do what Ted Cruz did here last night? Are
you going to start the buildup of Bernie? The right wing buildup of
Bernie. You guys are Bernie.

CORN: They love Bernie.

SCHLAPP: Wait a minute. Aren`t you doing a little buildup of Donald


SCHLAPP: There we go. He`s legitimate, isn`t he? Here we go.


MATTHEWS: You`re political operative.

Anyway, thank you, David Corn and thank you, Zerlina Maxwell, and Matt

When we return, let me finish on the slur by the president by one
Marco Rubio. You are watching HARDBALL, a place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this slur on the president by
Marco Rubio. I think it`s there in the Republican conversation, this
familiar disdain for Barack Obama. No matter how things are doing, no
matter where the conversation is, it`s considered good politics to dump on
him. Not just the president but the man.

To win the favor of the nastiest person in the room say something
nasty about the president of the United States and this is what debates is
politics right here. It`s regular casual debasement of the one and the
other side.

Don`t just disagree with him or her. Don`t just put down their
arguments or policies or achievements. No, you want to truly score, you do
in there for the kill and put down their personal behavior, their
upbringing. You say they were born in the wrong side of the track. You
say they have no class.

Senator Rubio was given a chance to take back his slur. He refused to
do so. I think he should find a way. Knocking the other side personally
simply ends the discussion.

That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.

"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.


Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>