IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Monday, April 22nd, 2013

Read the transcript to the Monday show

April 22, 2013


Guests: David Remnick, Philip Mudd, Howard Fineman, Joy Reid

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Crime and punishment.

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

Leading off tonight, charges filed. Suspected Boston bomber Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev was charged today with a weapon -- using a weapon of mass
destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death
following the three deaths and more than 180 injured in last Monday`s
Marathon attack.

The criminal complaint includes a description of video footage of him
leaving a knapsack on the ground where the second explosion took place.
Another similar bomb made with the same kind of pressure cooker was found
at the site of the Watertown shootout.

Tsarnaev remains in a Boston hospital tonight, unable to speak because of
injuries that include a gunshot wound to his neck. But he`s being
questioned by authorities already and responding with written answers.

In Medford, Massachusetts, today a funeral was held for 29-year-old victim
Krystle Campbell. And in Boston, Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Thomas
Menino requested a moment of silence at 2:50 in the afternoon to mark the
one-week anniversary of the bombing. Great public servants up there.

We begin with those new charges filed against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Pete
Williams is NBC`s chief justice correspondent. Pete, we`ve got ave

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Right. We do. Couple of things about
the charges first, Chris. Number one, both of the two counts that are
filed today against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could bring the death penalty.
They`re capital cases. And interestingly, as you so well know, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

So if anybody is going to seek a death penalty in this case, it would be
the federal charges. Now, we`re a long way from there. The attorney
general has to decide that. I think he would be the youngest person
against whom the government would do that, if it did. But it could, if it
wanted to.

In terms of what the evidence shows, according to the FBI, it`s partly the
photographic evidence and partly the forensic evidence. Now, as for the
photographs, they give a long discussion of what they say is a key piece of
the evidence from the second bombing scene. And this is taken from the
restaurant right in front of where the bomb was placed.

And according to this video, you see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev come into the frame.
He`s wearing a backpack. He works his way into the crowd, the video says.
You see him take the backpack off. They say still photos show the backpack
at his feet.

And then they say it`s very telling that at the moment the first bomb goes
off, you see the people in the crowd around him look in alarm toward the
first bombing scene, but they say he doesn`t.

They say he appears calm, glances in that direction momentarily, appears to
work his cell phone, and then walks away. And then a few seconds after
that, the second bomb goes off at the spot where he put down his backpack.
So that`s the photographic evidence.

Then they also talk about physical evidence. They say that both the bombs
at the Marathon were made with pressure cookers. They contained BBs that
were -- had an adhesive on them because they appeared to be glued in place
into these pressure cookers, and a certain kind of green fuse.

Then they say at the scene of the shootout in Watertown on Thursday night,
when police say the two brothers threw out another one of these pressure
cooker bombs, it was made with the same brand of pressure cooker as the two
in the Boston Marathon bombing, and also contained BBs and green fuse.

And then one other link in the forensic evidence, they say that yesterday,
they went to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev`s dorm room at the U. Mass. Dartmouth campus
and found in his room BBs and also what they call a pyrotechnic device.
And I don`t know if that means a big firecracker. But they also say they
found a black jacket and a white hat similar to what is seen in the FBI
photos that were released Friday night of one of the two bombers.

And then finally, Chris, there`s a discussion that has some new details
about the carjacking. They say that one of the two brothers tapped on the
window of a man`s SUV. He rolled it down. The person reached in, opened
the door, pointed a gun at him and said, Did you hear about the Boston
explosion? I did that.

And according to the FBI document, the man showed that he had rounds in his
gun and said, I`m serious. And then they drove away, tried to get money
out of his ATM, and eventually stopped at a gas station, when the carjack -
- the owner of the carjacked car was able to escape, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, what would the trial be about with this kind of evidence?
I guess that would require some speculation. But where are the holes in
this chain of evidence?

WILLIAMS: Well, I guess one thing is it`s -- there`s no discussion in here
of, for example, other things that we think we know about, is the -- one of
victims at the bombing scene described one of the bombers to the FBI.
There`s nothing of that in here.


WILLIAMS: And there`s other forensic evidence about the bombs. But of
course, you know, this is a starting point. This is just a placeholder to
get the process started. There`s going to be a grand jury next. There`ll
be an indictment. It will have a lot more detail as the case goes on. The
government can file new versions of that, superseding versions, they call
them. So this is not the end, this is the beginning of the government`s
statement of the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Great reporting. Thank you, Pete Williams, for joining us --
Pete Williams, justice correspondent for NBC News.

Clint Van Zandt`s a former FBI profiler, of course, and an MSNBC political
(SIC) analyst, and Philip Mudd`s a former CIA analyst and former deputy
director of the FBI national security branch. He`s author of the book

Clint, it`s great to have spent all these days with you. I just want to
wonder -- I know we`re filled in this country with some strange-thinking
people -- truthers, birthers -- that have off-the-wall theories. I don`t
know how anybody could look at all this evidence presented so far and have
some other theory of the case besides the indictment itself.

together. I mean, there -- as terrible as this case is and was, there
doesn`t seem to be a whole lot of heavy lifting. We`ve got the two primary
individuals. It`s obvious that they had hands on the devices.

The pieces we don`t have, Chris, are where was their inspiration? Where
did they get the guidance?


VAN ZANDT: Who taught them how to build the bombs? Where did they build
them? These are a lot of questions --

MATTHEWS: Why is that important? Why is that important to -- is that
important to prosecuting? I mean, what difference does it make why they
did it, if they did it? I`m being tough here. But I don`t know whether --
when you look at all this evidence --

VAN ZANDT: No, no. No.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

VAN ZANDT: No. It`s -- it`s important to the case because we want to make
sure there aren`t others that should be prosecuted. Is there anybody else
in the immediate Boston area who gave aid and comfort, assistance, money,
guidance, teaching? If not, how far does this go? Did that six-month trip
to Russia and the Cossacks (SIC) that the 26-year-old, now deceased,
suspected terrorist or bomber --


VAN ZANDT: Did he receive bomb training there? We -- you know, you can`t
quit and just say, OK, we got two guys, we`re done with it, let`s move on

As you know, today they had another incident that took place in Canada.
They had two individuals that were plotting to bomb trains up in Canada.
And between the RCMP and the FBI and other agencies, they were able to stop
that. They -- just like here in the United States, we got to figure out
how far-ranging that plot was and where did they get that inspiration?

MATTHEWS: And when you go back through the history of big cases, like the
Alger Hiss case or the Rosenbergs, it`s rare that a person operates without
talking about it or sharing. I`m not saying they`re necessarily
accomplices, but they probably are in some cases.

How do you -- how do you assume that this guy this guy has BBs all over his
room -- he`s got -- I don`t know, the wife of the older brother? I mean, I
would be looking at all this, potentially, as people involved. It`s common
sense, isn`t it? People don`t operate -- I want to bring in -- I want to
bring in Philip here. Your thoughts about that.

two pieces of this. The first is imminent threat. Are the people out
there, are there weapons, explosives that represent an imminent threat in
the community?

There`s a parallel piece that`ll last months -- more than weeks, it`ll last
months. And that is if you look at the categories of any terrorist
conspiracy, that`s money, travel, who radicalized them, did they radicalize
somebody else?

MATTHEWS: Who`s involved?

MUDD: Did somebody else know. That -- to prove that negative -- I know
people are out there saying it`s two brothers who acted alone. I suspect
that`s true. But suspicion ain`t good enough in terrorism. We got to
prove it.

MATTHEWS: In terms of proving the guilt or allowing the innocence of this
guy, is it important to find out those answers?

MUDD: No, but it`s important from an intelligence perspective to know
whether there`s another piece of the conspiracy that could regenerate in
two years.

MATTHEWS: Right. Right. And back to you, Clint -- that question of other
people being involved. I mean, he was hanging around the dormitory Tuesday
night. As a complete civilian here -- I always bring that up. I`m not an
attorney. I`m not a spook. I don`t know this stuff.

But thinking about it logically, how does a guy kill a bunch of people on
Monday and then hang around with a bunch of other Americans on Tuesday,
having a great time, expressing his shared sadness over what happened the
day before?

If he hates America, like his older brother said he did, or didn`t fit in
at all, like he said he did, why did he kill a bunch of us or try to kill a
bunch of us or kill three people and maim so many others? If he hates
America, why did he hate it on Monday but not on Tuesday, Clint?

VAN ZANDT: Well, some of this may go to tradecraft. He may have been --
you know, his brother may have instructed him -- look, the obvious thing
that everybody was looking for was one or two individuals who disappeared
from the Boston area immediately after the bombing. These guys, Chris,
somehow were smart enough to know all they had to do was hide in plain
sight, continue on --

MATTHEWS: Got you.

VAN ZANDT: -- just like life goes on. And the only thing that got them,
the only difference, perhaps, between them and Ted Kaczynski are
photographs. That made the difference.

MATTHEWS: Yes, well, yesterday on CBS, Boston police chief Ed Davis said
the evidence found in this case suggests that the brothers would attack
again. This is what you were talking about, Philip. Let`s watch the chief


ED DAVIS, BOSTON POLICE COMMISSIONER: We have reason to believe, based
upon the evidence that was found at that scene, the explosions, the
explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had,
that they were going to attack other individuals.


MATTHEWS: You know, it took about several days, but the police knew things
we didn`t know. Philip, tell us about what`s going on now we don`t know.

MUDD: What`s going now we don`t know is the volume of information
investigators on the intelligence side, CIA, for example, on the FBI side -
- the mountain on information is growing exponentially. So while you sit
there and say it`s two brothers, one of whom is dead, the case is closed,
to figure out things like where they travel, who they talk to, did they
talk to somebody three years ago --


MUDD: -- who was part of the conspiracy? That will take months. The
volume is enormous, especially in the digital age.

MATTHEWS: If the FBI was checking with the older brother before he went to
Russia last year --

MUDD: Yes.

MATTHEWS: -- at the behest of the Russians --

MUDD: Yes.

MATTHEWS: -- why did the Russians let him back in to visit for six

MUDD: I think they might have used this as an intelligence collection

MATTHEWS: To watch him?

MUDD: They might have. They might --

MATTHEWS: But then all they did was come back and say, Check him again.
Why didn`t they catch him doing something, if they knew he was up to
something, even before he went to Russia?

MUDD: Well, you`ve got to --

MATTHEWS: Three things happened. FBI asked to investigate the guy before
he goes to Russia. He goes to Russia. Then FBI investigates him when he
comes back.

All this -- you talk about operating in plain sight. This guy is an
amateur. He goes over to somewhere in Russia, comes back, maybe
radicalized. We`re learning this stuff, trying to find it out. And
everybody`s questioning, but nobody`s doing anything.

MUDD: No, I don`t buy it. Look --

MATTHEWS: What don`t you buy?

MUDD: I don`t buy this idea that you look at these cases in isolation
without understanding the context of counterterrorism operations in the
United States. If you sit there, as I did for nine years, with what`s
called a threat matrix -- that is, the roster of threats the United States
is facing every day.


MUDD: I think one thing that would surprise Americans is they only see
these cases episodically, particularly when they succeed like Boston.

MATTHEWS: Yes. How many cases do you have where the Russians warn us
about some Chechen in this country, and then he goes over to that part of
the world, and he comes back in, we ask him again stuff, and he gets
through the screen? How many cases are there like that?

MUDD: That`s irrelevant. What you have is --


MUDD: -- calls you in Atlanta (ph). The Russians call you. Somebody`s
neighbor calls you. Somebody`s mom calls you. You get an intercept from
Europe. You`re dealing with dozens of cases every day and thousands of
individuals --


MUDD: -- and you`ve got to figure --

MATTHEWS: So the watch list is very long. Let me -- Clint, last thought.
Your thought about that. How do you put it all together? I mean, we`re
still trying to figure out what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing in Russia. I
understand this. And he comes back -- just the fact that he comes
infatuated with Castro, and then we know what happened.

In this case, how do you put it together? The Russians knew something was
up, warned us something was up, and then accepted him back into their
country. And then he comes back here and we check him again and he gets
through it all, the older brother.

VAN ZANDT: Yes, and realize -- realize the FBI reached out to Russia and
said, Hey, can you give us a little background? What else is going on with
this guy?


VAN ZANDT: What do we get back? Nada.


VAN ZANDT: So the Russians owe us something right now. You know, Putin is
trying to get ready for the Olympics. If he`s looking for U.S. help, he
needs to help us. What was this guy doing for six months? Where was he
at? Who was he -- whose training school was he possibly going to?

MATTHEWS: And if he wants a gold star from us, that would be a nice way to
get it, OK? Thank you. Thank you, Clint Van Zandt. Thank you, Philip
Mudd. Please join us again.

We have much more on Boston bombing coming up this hour. When we return,
we`re going to get into the law of this case. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was
formally charged today. He`ll be prosecuted through the criminal justice
system, despite some Republicans who say he should be treated as an enemy
combatant. We`ll get into that fight in a minute.

And later, the Russian connection. We`re talking about that already. We
have new details about the older brother, Tamerlan, and his six-month trip
overseas to Russia, that area, as he became increasingly more devout in his
religion and his radicalism.

And here in Washington, the Marathon bombings have already started to
change the debate on things like -- you knew this was coming --

Finally, life started to return to normal this weekend up in Boston. I was
up there as the slow healing begins.

This is HARDBALL, or as we say up there, HAHDBALL (ph), the place for


MATTHEWS: As Clint Van Zandt just mentioned here, police in Canada say
they`ve foiled a terror plot up there. They`ve arrested two men they (ph)
made (ph) -- they were plotting to derail an Amtrak (SIC) passenger train
on the Canadian side of our border. The suspects have been under
surveillance for a year, and the Canadian authorities say the plotters had
help from al Qaeda. Wow.

And while police says the suspects had the capacity and the intent to carry
out the attack, there was no imminent threat to the public. Officials say
the plot was not connected to the Boston Marathon bombings.

And we`ll be right back.



JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He will not be treated as an
enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian
system of justice.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was, of course, White House
spokesman Jay Carney shortly before 1:00 PM today, making clear the Boston
suspect will not be treated as an enemy combatant, as some Republican
senators including Lindsey Graham, have called for. Fast-forward an hour-
and-a-half, and Senator Graham challenged the administration, calling the
decision they made premature. Let`s listen to Lindsey.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Here`s my concern. As a lawyer
for over 30 years, civilian and military, I strongly support the concept
that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate
themselves while they`re in custody of the government. Every nation at war
should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I believe our nation is at war. The enemy is radical Islam, defined as the
Taliban, al Qaeda and affiliated groups. The question I have regarding
this case -- is there any association between these two individuals and the
groups I just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon
the suspect in Boston?


MATTHEWS: Well, let`s drill down on the legal status of the Boston bombing
suspect with Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst,
and of course, the great Jonathan Turley, law professor at GW University
here in Washington.

Jonathan, thank you for this. Can they decide later, if a piece of
evidence shows up, say, a week from now or two days from now that shows a
connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al Qaeda, taking orders,
timing, that kind of thing -- does the government change the status of this

citizen. He has presumption of innocence. And the Supreme Court has
repeatedly slapped back the Justice Department in trying to create a dual-
track system, where some people get constitutional rights and some do not.
And they`ve always focused on whether the person is a U.S. citizen as a key
factor here.

And what Senator Graham was talking about is pretty alarming because he`s
talking about enemy combatants, which by the way, is a term the Obama
administration --

MATTHEWS: But suppose you go overseas to join al Qaeda somewhere and
you`re working -- and you`re with them. Are you still an American under
the law?

TURLEY: My view, you are.


MATTHEWS: Under the government`s view?

TURLEY: Well, we haven`t -- we haven`t changed the U.S. Constitution yet.

al Qaeda somewhere and you`re working and you`re with them. Are you still
an American under the law?

TURLEY: My view, you are. You`re an American.


MATTHEWS: But under the -- under most -- under the government`s view?

TURLEY: Well, we haven`t -- we haven`t changed the U.S. Constitution yet.

And what Mr. -- what Mr. -- what Senator Graham is talking about is
actually using enemy combatant status as a way of getting evidence, that
it`s no longer even the justification we have to isolate them in Guantanamo

He wants to keep the status open so we can get more intelligence.


TURLEY: And that shows you this path once you cross that Rubicon.

MATTHEWS: But suppose you`re an American in World War II and you go join
the Nazi side. Do you still say the person deserves the rights of

TURLEY: Well, first of all, if you`re at war, there are special rules of
war that apply.

MATTHEWS: Aren`t we at war?

TURLEY: I don`t believe we are against a category of crime. I think that
this is part of the longstanding debate.

MATTHEWS: Yes, I think a lot of people think we are.

TURLEY: Well, you know what, they`re saying that they`re at war with

MATTHEWS: No, no, al Qaeda.

TURLEY: Well, then -- then --

MATTHEWS: Aren`t they the sworn enemy of this country and the West

TURLEY: We have a lot of sworn enemies and then we have a lot of citizens
that have different views and different motivations.


TURLEY: But if we start to say that we`re going to play the Caesar-like
role and send some citizens to a real trial and some to one of these
makeshift military tribunals, then we have really lost this war.

MATTHEWS: OK. And you don`t believe in killing them by drone, then?

TURLEY: Well, no, I`m a big critic of drone --


MATTHEWS: OK. Well, I just want to get --


TURLEY: -- citizens, yes.

MATTHEWS: I would project that far.

Let`s go to Kendall Coffey with your view.

Did you -- do you side with what you just heard, Kendall?


MATTHEWS: Do you believe that it`s appropriate -- go ahead.


COFFEY: It`s clear that being an enemy of society, even hate-filled and
horrific in your crimes, doesn`t make you an enemy combatant.

You have to be part of an enemy force. And I agree with the analysis that
being part of al Qaeda creates an eligibility. I don`t think being part of
just a general hatred of the United States is nearly enough.


COFFEY: But where I slightly disagree is there`s a Supreme Court decision,
the one you were referring to, Chris, involving the Nazi saboteurs, one of
whom was a U.S. citizen. The crimes were essentially perpetrated or
intended to be perpetrated on U.S. soil.

And it seemed that in that case the Supreme Court did provide support for
an enemy combatant concept, including a U.S. citizen. But bottom line is,
this is not a case for enemy combatants, and there are so many horrible
crimes committed.


COFFEY: If we start throwing the Constitution out, we`re going to lose the
real war for our values.

MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about the issue that a lot of people have been
talking about, not everybody, but some, Miranda rights.

We have watched enough detective shows to know, police shows, they give
Miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, it`s
done. Why do you think that was an issue, Jonathan?


TURLEY: Well --


MATTHEWS: Or we have been talking -- now that we just got the word as we
went on the air tonight that the men -- the defendant here, or the suspect,
I guess he`s a defendant now, has been issued -- has been given his Miranda

TURLEY: Well, this is truly something of an urban legend. People like to
watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn`t given Miranda
rights. That`s extremely rare.

I do criminal defense work. And I will tell you that the most you can hope
for in a Miranda case is that one or two statements will not make it into
court. It`s rare that the whole case falls out, unless everything came
from --


MATTHEWS: So it`s not the poison fruit thing?


TURLEY: Well, there is a poison fruit provision -- standard. But it`s
very rare for it to pollute an entire case.


Well, let me just ask you practically, why don`t the law enforcement
officials of the -- the federal officials up there who have him in custody
at the hospital, why don`t they just read him his Miranda? Why didn`t they
just -- why didn`t just do it as soon as they could?

TURLEY: Yes, in my view, they should. And I have serious problems with
the public safety exception that they articulated. This is an exception
that usually at the scene, where they`re looking for a gun, they`re looking
for something that a kid could come across.


TURLEY: It`s not something --


MATTHEWS: Well, they can test -- they attest that they do believe there`s
reasonable belief that this guy and his brother had plans for other
operations because they had more bombs.

TURLEY: Well, but --


MATTHEWS: Isn`t that a prima facie case, they intend to use them, they
have them?

TURLEY: Well --


MATTHEWS: Why would you have a bomb if you didn`t intend to use it?

TURLEY: Well, if you take the position of the administration, they argued
two years ago that they can expand this exception.


TURLEY: But the way they read it, anyone accused of terrorism would be
denied Miranda because there`s always a chance there might be another bomb
or another conspirator.


Let me ask you -- let me go to the same question to Kendall.

If you have bomb equipment, if they -- if they had a bomb at the last
minute when they were picked up, the police were challenging -- they`re
throwing these IEDs at police, isn`t that evidence that they had the
potential and, therefore, the motive even to use them? Why would they make
them if they weren`t going to use them?

COFFEY: Well, certainly. And I think the way the administration is
approaching this is a very strong rebuttal to Senator Graham`s contention
that the Constitution doesn`t work and that existing civilian systems are
inadequate, because what the administration is showing is that the public
safety exception gives you enough room in terrorism cases to ask the
questions that you need to ask.

Terrorism, definitionally, is all about creating public danger.


COFFEY: And so that gives you plenty of room to ask plenty of questions
about public safety.

MATTHEWS: Well, while -- while you`re on, let me ask you about this WMD.
I don`t like the phrase anyway. I think it was cooked up by the neocons to
get us into a war. WMD, I had never heard the phrase before in my life.
It was a way of suggesting nuclear without actually proving it.

Anyway, in this case, under the law, the term WMD, I understand it has a
number of meanings, but why -- suppose you came into this country with an
idea of assassinating public officials with a handgun. Isn`t that
terrorism just as much as using bombs?

COFFEY: Well, of course it is.

And that`s why you have to define where the -- the rules apply not based on
the weapons that are used. Use a weapons of mass destruction, in the case
of these laws, it equates to a destructive device, explosives, almost any
form that are intended as a weapon.

MATTHEWS: Yes. But the worst killers we know were using box cutters,

TURLEY: Right.


MATTHEWS: Box cutters. They weren`t even considered weapons by the
airlines in those days.

I want to go back to Jonathan on this.

TURLEY: Right.

MATTHEWS: Why aren`t they terrorist acts? Well, they were, of course.

TURLEY: They were. And the thing is, ultimately --


MATTHEWS: Why does the law say WMD that we`re using to prosecute today?

TURLEY: Well, that`s -- it`s true that this is a term of art that we have
really seen come out of the Bush administration. But, ultimately, under
most --


MATTHEWS: Sirhan Sirhan was a terrorist. He killed Bobby Kennedy with a

TURLEY: That`s right.

MATTHEWS: He`s a terrorist.

TURLEY: This is part of the back-load from the whole 9/11.

Civil libertarians always expect two explosions in every terrorist attack.


TURLEY: One is the original and the other one is the explosion against
privacy, civil liberties.


TURLEY: And you have see that already happening.


TURLEY: There`s this Pavlovian response of these politicians.

MATTHEWS: It`s great to have you on. Thank you, as always, Jonathan
Turley of George Washington University.

TURLEY: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: And thank you very much, Kendall Coffey.

Up next, Boston strong. Life in the city is beginning to return to normal.
I was up there this weekend overnight. The slow healing has begun one week
after the horrific marathon bombings. It`s only a week ago. Boy, the
world changes in a week, doesn`t it? We will be right back after this.


MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL and some good stories of Boston strong. Boston

Just one week after the attacks at the Boston Marathon, the city of Boston
is slowly returning to some kind of normal. Fenway Park was back in action
on Saturday with the first game since Monday`s bombings. And it wouldn`t
be a game at Fenway without a rendition of "Sweet Caroline" in the eighth

Well, Saturday was no exception, aside from the little surprise that
songwriter Neil Diamond showed up and volunteered to lead the crowd in the
tradition. Here it is.




MATTHEWS: It`s amazing how songs like that get started. Of course, you
have got "Country Boy" that goes with every Orioles game.

Anyway, at Fenway, that was the focus of it. It was a video that was made
here by -- it`s for One Fund Boston and for the victims. Let`s take a


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing can defeat the heart of the city, because we
take care of one another.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is our city.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a glorious thing. I love this country. It covers
our city. This is Boston.



That video was put together by Nick (ph) and Collin (ph) Barnicle, sons of
MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle.

Anyway, the Boston spirit was easy to find outside Fenway Park, too, as
people returned to areas close to the bombings.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re very strong here in Boston. We will rebuild and
we will be stronger than ever before, I think.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don`t mess with Boston. It`s a very, very
resilient town. People here will -- life will go on.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`ll never turn my back on it.


MATTHEWS: There`s lots of appreciation for the first-responders to last
Sunday`s -- last Monday`s attacks. Signs like this one offered free coffee
to anyone involved in stepping up to help the city after the attack. And a
group of young girls walked around Boston handing out cookies to police.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We wanted to give cookies to all Boston police.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s great that they helped and I really wanted to
thank them.


MATTHEWS: That`s great.

Anyway, here`s an example of the reaction from law enforcement over all the
public affection.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like a firefighter, I`m getting so much love.





And up next, new details about Tamerlan -- Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- he`s, of
course, the older brother -- his trip to Russia and his radicalization here
at home.

You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.


AMANDA DRURY, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Amanda Drury with your CNBC "Market

Well, stocks reversed earlier losses, the Dow gaining 19 points, the S&P up
by 7, and the Nasdaq adding 27 points.

Existing home sales fell six-tenths-of-a-percent in March, according to the
National Association of Realtors. Economist expected a gain.

Meanwhile, earnings and revenue from Caterpillar missed estimates. It also
cut its four-year outlook.

And Netflix shares are surging, up over 20 percent in after-hours trade
following its latest earnings report.

That`s it from CNBC for now. We`re first in business worldwide. Now it`s
back over to HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

The Tsarnaev brothers` road to terrorism is a still unfolding puzzle, of
course, for all of us. What exactly motivated these two brothers? We`re
learning more every day, of course.

And one brother in particular, Tamerlan, became increasingly radicalized
over the last several years. We know now that the Russian government
expressed concern about him as far as 2011. They warned the FBI he was a
follower of radical Islam and that he was traveling to the Russian region
to -- quote -- "join unspecified underground groups."

Well, the FBI`s investigation never turned up anything significant.
Tsarnaev traveled to the troubled region of Dagestan for six months last
year. And that`s where his parents live. It`s also a epicenter of a
violent jihadist insurgency in Russia and a hub of jihadist recruitment
generally, as "The New York Times" wrote yesterday -- actually today.

Anyway, back home in the U.S., Tsarnaev became even more radicalized. "The
Boston Globe" reports he disrupted conversations at his local Cambridge
mosque twice in recent months with outbursts of radical theology and he
created a YouTube page featuring jihadist videos and extremist Islamic --
Islamist preachers.

How did all this lead add to that brutal attack on the Boston Marathon a
week ago? Well, that`s the question all of want answered.

Richard Engel is NBC News` chief foreign correspondent. And David Remnick
is editor of "The New Yorker" magazine.

I want to start with Richard, then to David.

Richard, why did the Russians let him in if he was a problem for them
before he even went over there a year earlier?

governments that are watching people to give them some slack, to let them
travel, to let them come into your country. It actually can be helpful
sometimes if you`re watching someone to see who they`re talking to.

We see that time and time again when someone actually does something.

MATTHEWS: Well, why didn`t they do it, then?

ENGEL: They do that to see where their trail will lead.

MATTHEWS: No, why didn`t they do it? Why didn`t they trail him and find
out what he was up to over there so we would have benefited from that? If
that was their intention of letting him in, why didn`t they follow up?

ENGEL: I think the -- the -- what it seems to be is they weren`t sure how
far along he was in this radicalization process.


ENGEL: Just believing in radical -- a radical ideology is not any kind of
criminal act.

It`s once you decide to take action on it. Why the Russians didn`t do
more, why the FBI didn`t do more, those are good questions. And especially
if that "Boston Globe" reporting talking about how he was making outbursts
in mosques, and someone who had clearly crossed the Rubicon and was -- was
acting visibly like they would -- had -- had fully radicalized themselves,
I think that is certainly a red flag.

If you have someone who`s traveled abroad, who has already been pointed out
to by Russian intelligence and then is suddenly making outbursts, I think
you then do raise above that level of suspicion.


Over the weekend, the suspect`s uncle told NBC he -- he saw his older
nephew grow more radicalized. Let`s watch.


RUSLAN TSARNI, UNCLE OF SUSPECTS: I was shocked when I heard his words,
his phrases, when he start talking, oh -- I mean, every other word, he
starts sticking in words of God.

It wasn`t devotion. It was something, as it`s called, being radicalized,
not understanding even what he`s talking.


MATTHEWS: You know

RUSLAN TSARNI, BOMBING SUSPECTS` UNCLE: -- he starts speaking in words of
God. It wasn`t devotion. It was something, as it`s called, being
radicalized. Not understanding even what he`s talking.


MATTHEWS: You know, it fascinates me, I know you`re good on this, David
Remnick, is what Putin is thinking now. Does this help him make his case
that he`s been right against Chechnya, and that we were wrong not -- or
naive not to understand the threat from there? Does he now use this, help
us with our intel, help build the case of the role the guy played in this
radicalization? What`s Putin going to do with this?

DAVID REMNICK, THE NEW YORKER: Well, Putin has a huge political interest
coming up in Russia. And that is protecting the Olympic Games, the Winter
Olympics are coming up that are in that region. There in Sochi, which is
very, very close to Dagestan and Chechnya. You can be sure that the
crackdown that kind of a permanent crackdown that exists in that region
will get even more draconian with time and this example will be used.

And I should say the Russian behavior in that region has been brutal and
he`s tried to excuse it. They`ve gone way too far very often, despite the
radicalization of that region.

MATTHEWS: How smart is Russian intelligence in tracking the movements and
training, if there was any, the radicalization, if there was any, during
that six-month period over there in that region?

REMNICK: Well, traditionally in the old Soviet Union, the smartest elites,
whether you liked them or not, and we certainly didn`t, had no reason to,
gravitated toward the intelligence services.

Andrei Sakharov, the great dissident, always used to say that reform may
well come from inside the KGB, ironically enough, because that`s the area
where people are the most worldly. They have languages and so on. There`s
a lot of manpower and intellectual power, ironically, in the secret
services. That`s where Putin, himself, comes from and that`s where largely
the hierarchy of the entire Russian government comes from, surrounding

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Richard, just your own thoughts because I
respect you so much and your reporting. You`re a hard reporter. You have
been so much living over in the Middle East and the Islamic world,

What does -- how does this all fit in -- Chechnya, radicalization,
jihadism? How does it all fit together that we should begin to understand

necessarily think of this as a Chechen problem. The Chechen nationalists
who are the ones that Putin wants to crack down on, I think you`d be
conflating the issues a little bit.


ENGEL: Because the Chechens -- he would be using this as an excuse to
crack down on Chechen nationalists and there`s no real indication that
these brothers were Chechen nationalists so much. They were traditional
people who had the al Qaeda ideology who happened to be Chechens, who
happened to be from a place in Dagestan where there happened to be a lot o
radicals. And Putin could say, ah, look at this, these are -- it`s a
hotbed of extremists but they are different kinds of extremists.

REMNICK: That`s right.

ENGEL: We have the Chechen nationals who would want to attack Moscow then
you would have general global jihadists who are motivated by Chechnya, by
Pakistan, by Syria, by Palestine, and want to attack the West, the United
States, Israel. And these two brothers seem to fit into the latter

REMNICK: I should say, Chris, I was looking at the Web sites and YouTubes
that he has up on his pages, and he`s been putting up on his pages for the
last three years. And there`s a mixture. There`s a confusion. There`s a
-- this is a mixed up kid. I mean --

MATTHEWS: I read your column today.

REMNICK: -- who committed a horrifying and evil act.

But the level of confusion and idiocy on these pages is rich.


REMNICK: You have both the nationalist element there. You have kind of
Chechen hip hop, and then you have videos of why Russians who were
originally Russian orthodox became Muslim, and in some cases, radical
fundamentalists. Then, you also have the videos of radical fundamentalist
preachers from all around the world, from the Arab world.


REMNICK: And most particularly this guy, Feiz Mohammad, who`s Australian
born, speaks English and is really, really radical. He was listening to
him. So, this process was going on for about three, four years.

MATTHEWS: I noticed one of the e-mails or whatever here was, a decade in
America already, I want out.

REMNICK: I want out.

MATTHEWS: Why didn`t he just leave?

REMNICK: Well, this is the younger brother`s Twitter feed.


REMNICK: Well, we don`t know the answers to these questions. I should
say, and this is, I think, an important point to make. There are a lot of
people who go from the devout side to a more radical side. There are a lot
of people who entertain political ideas we may not like. Those are not
criminal acts. And so, what Richard says about surveillance and the
Russian intelligence looking in on these people is one thing.

But it`s hardly possible to go around arresting everybody that begins to
entertain radical ideas or fundamentalist versions of their religion.

MATTHEWS: Thanks for that.

Thank you -- thank you, Richard Engel, as always, sir. And David Remnick,
thank you, from "The New Yorker."

Up next, will the Boston marathon bombing change the debate here in
Washington over immigration reform? They`re getting connected already and
that`s ahead.

This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: One week after the Boston marathon bombings, Pennsylvania Avenue
in front of the White House remains closed to pedestrians. Secret Service
tells NBC News that while no pedestrians restriction has been relaxed --
has not been relaxed, this is not a permanent new policy luckily.
Pennsylvania Avenue will re-open to pedestrians at some point, but no date
has been set.

This stretch, you`re looking at it now, of Pennsylvania Avenue, has been
closed to vehicle traffic since the Oklahoma City bombing back in `95.

And this, unfortunately, is how terrorism wins in these cases.

We`ll be right back.


MATTHEWS: We`re back.

The Boston marathon bombings are already having political ramifications on
the hottest debate here in Washington right now, immigration reform. Last
week Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was the first to link the
Boston attacks with immigration, saying the attacks provided an opportunity
to discuss the country`s broken immigration system. Other Republicans have
gone further, suggesting Congress put off action on immigration reform all

Well, today, things got hot when Senator Chuck Schumer indirectly called
out Grassley.


SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: You have ways to improve the bill,
offer an amendment when we start markup in May and let`s vote on it. I say
that particularly to those who are pointing to what happened, the terrible
tragedy in Boston as, I would say, an excuse for not doing a bill or
delaying it many months or years.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R). IOWA: I never said that. I never said that.

SCHUMER: I didn`t say you did, sir.

GRASSLEY: I didn`t say --

SCHUMER: I didn`t say you did.


MATTHEWS: Howard Fineman is the editorial director of the Huffington Post
Media Group and Joy Reid is the managing editor of Both are
both MSNBC political analyst.

I want Howard first and then Joy.

No matter what we say, we can all kind of have predicted this. There was
going to be an overlay, a bleeding of this horror into immigration, because
this is about foreign people coming here.

it. Right now, the polls show that people in the United States have
generally -- although only modestly favorable view of immigration overall,
they are in favor of immigration reform and they are for the notion of
continuing immigration. But there have been times in our history in recent
years when people have been very much against the idea of immigration


FINEMAN: And what proponents of reform have to worry about is this sort of
notion of nativism coming up again and people just saying, no, let`s stop.
I think that`s sort of the impulse behind Chuck Grassley, it`s the impulse
behind Rand Paul, who is one of the renegades who says, let`s stop
immigration reform.

But Rand Paul doesn`t have the interests of the Republican Party at heart.
It`s the Republicans who want immigration reform --

MATTHEWS: Off their back.

FINEMAN: -- for the most part.

MATTHEWS: Off their back, because it`s killing them.

FINEMAN: People like Rand Paul are not interested in the future of the
Republican Party.

MATTHEWS: I don`t think he has a macro view of the party.


MATTHEWS: Anyway, some Republicans who don`t like immigration reform are
using the Boston marathon bombing as an excuse to stall it.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Tea Party senator Rand
Paul of Kentucky said, quote, "The facts emerging in the Boston marathon
bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. We should not
proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration

Joy, I`m not sure what weaknesses or maybe the visa the Russians gave him
was probably more of a problem. But, I mean, back and forth, I would -- I
still think we ought to know more about what happened. We were warned, he
went back over there and came back and nothing happened then.

But your thoughts about immigration per se, what`s it got to do here with
this bombing?

JOY REID, THE GRIO: Right. I mean, it looks like at least what
immigration reform is designed to fix has nothing to do with this case.
You know, these guys didn`t sneak over the Southern border. They were not
without documents. They had papers. They got that on the plane flight
from Europe when they came over here. They weren`t even from the part of
the country that immigration reform is supposedly really directed at, which
is South of our U.S. border.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of immigration reform.
If it has to do with othering and sort of the nativism that comes up with
something like this happens, then people can discuss that. But this
doesn`t have to do with the specific reforms on the table.

And, look, if Republicans are going to use this as an excuse to not do
something that`s for their good -- let`s make no mistake, they have to do
immigration reform if they want to continue to be a national party. If
they are willing to walk away from that --


REID: -- Democrats may be high-fiving them for it.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know, people are who they are. And if there`s a
nativist out, there`s always a sense where people are basically, to some
degree, tribal, they identify with their own group, and they become more
educated, more open-minded and more tolerant -- in fact, more diverse in
their thinking. That`s part of our growing up in America lately -- lately.

FINEMAN: Yes. Well --

MATTHEWS: But I tell you one thing, I think it`s not the Mexicans, the
Guatemalans, the Colombians that are the terrorists, obviously. They come
here to get a job.


MATTHEWS: It`s the worry maybe about people coming here from the Middle
East, people coming here from South Asia. That`s where you`re going to see
the argument, first out.

FINEMAN: I know. But I think that it would be a terrible result --


FINEMAN: -- to let what happened in Boston derail what most people in the
country think is a good project, which is immigration reform. And as Joy
said, this part of the world that we`re talking about when Dagestan and
Chechnya, are not the main thing at issue here in immigration reform.

Let`s face it. As Joy says it is mostly about south of the border. It is
mostly about Mexico and Latin America, and it`s time to do something about
that and I think most people in the Republican Party and Democratic Party
agree on that.


FINEMAN: I`m just saying in terms of general attitudes towards immigrants,
one thing can get conflated with --


MATTHEWS: I know, let me --

FINEMAN: And that`s the danger here.

MATTHEWS: Let me play devil`s advocate here, because we just had David --
Richard, David Remnick on, who knows Russia. And he suggested because a
person has sort of radical views, jihadist views, and doesn`t do anything,
there`s nothing wrong with that. You don`t commit (INAUDIBLE) --


MATHEWS: Fair enough. But do you let them in the country? That`s the

REID: Chris, I think this does bring up a question about our asylum system
and our relationship with Russia, and that whole issues, because this was a
case where these guys sought political asylum, and were taken in. Not
under the common immigration system, but under the asylum system.

MATTHEWS: You`re right.

REID: Were naturalized, one of them even became a U.S. citizen. So, I
think we need to look at our relationship with Russia --

MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to that one.

REID: -- and whether or not we trusted the intel coming from Russia about
these guys.

MATTHEWS: I know. And just because they don`t like Russia doesn`t mean
they like us. It doesn`t work that way.

REID: Good point.

MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you, Howard Fineman. Not every member of the
family thinks a like.

Anyway, Joy, we`re learning so much.

When we return, let me finish with what I witness this weekend up in

You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this:

Kathleen and I were in Boston this week. And I came away with a memory and
a fairly deep realization about the human spirit. It`s really quite simple
really. We show respect. We honor loss.

But the one human act that we can all offer equally, silence. That is what
I heard as we walked up Boylston Street to the police rail, cutting off
even foot traffic from the finish line and the other bombing site from last
Monday. People have left things there, little things like teddy bears for
Martin Richard and Red Sox stuff and all kinds of handwritten message as a
regard and devotion.

And most of all the silence, a town that just loves talking sports,
politics, mainly sports, just shut it all down out of respect -- respect
for the dead, for the wounded, especially the badly wounded, out of respect
for this assault on the people, most of all, the people of Boston.

Remember the same silence in New York after 9/11. I remember riding the J-
train, the subway up from downtown, and the silence there -- the silence
that filled the air and spoke so loud.

And so, when we say, let`s have a moment of silence, that`s just a way to
tap into something that`s already a part of us, a part of the way we humans
show something that`s been done to us that deserves our respect, our
strongest feelings for the part of us that`s been taken from us.

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

"POLITICS NATION" with Al Sharpton starts right now.


Copyright 2013 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.>