'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Thursday, February 5th, 2015

Date: February 5, 2015
Guest: Robert Grenier, Liz Mair, Ken Vogel

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: The 20th hijacker.

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

"Let Me Start" tonight with this. Here is the horror of 9/11 -- 19
terrorists that hijacked four planes, two hit the World Trade Center, one
the Pentagon, one crashes into a Pennsylvania field, more than 3,000
Americans murdered. Fifteen of those nineteen hijackers are from Saudi
Arabia, which makes you wonder why we went to war against Iraq.

The man known as the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, is now serving
six life sentences in a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. Moussaoui
has told lawyers for 9/11 victims what he describes as a Saudi involvement
in the worst act of violence in this country`s history. Is he telling the

Evan Kohlmann is an NBC terrorism analyst. He was in the room when
Moussaoui gave his deposition. Robert Grenier is a former CIA agent and
author of "88 Days to Kandahar."

Thank you so much. Evan, tell me about -- you were in the room when
this deposition was given by Zacarias Moussaoui, in which he pointed to the
role, larger than we`d ever believed before, played by the Saudi -- the
Saudi people -- the Saudi leadership clique. Explain what he was arguing.

EVAN KOHLMANN, NBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Yes, look, I went in there a
skeptic, I think, as many others would have been. My understanding of
Moussaoui was that he was a crazy lunatic. And I have to say, you know,
that opinion was wrong.

After I sat with him for close to two days and got to question myself
in two different languages, it was pretty clear to me that Moussaoui is
quite sharp. He`s very coherent. He has a very, very deep understanding
and -- deep understanding and knowledge of al Qaeda, al Qaeda`s financial
networks and other aspects of the organization.

I obviously can`t verify every single fact he had to say with regard
to the Saudi royal family or his private meetings with them. But I can
tell you this. I was actually brought into this interview specifically to
try to see whether or not there were any aspects of what Moussaoui was
saying that could be corroborated with other facts.

And I can tell you that there was a lot of stuff that he said during
that interview about a variety of aspects of al Qaeda, everything from
financing to training camps, guesthouses, individual commanders that was
correct and accurate down to the tee.

And what`s more is, is that Moussaoui was given an opportunity to talk
about people where we were seeing -- you know, is this guy just going to
say he has information about everyone? Moussaoui declined those
opportunities. When he knew -- when he was given a name of someone who
didn`t know, he said, I don`t know that person, I don`t have any
information about that person. He was very specific about the people...


KOHLMANN: ... who he identified and who he -- you know, he laid the
blame on. Whether or not everything he said is true, it`s difficult to

MATTHEWS: I just want to put a little bulletin out here right now.
You were working in this case for the families of the Americans who were --
who lost someone at 9/11. So -- just so everybody knows why you were in
that room...

KOHLMANN: Correct.

MATTHEWS: ... because it was an amazing place to be.

Anyway, Moussaoui, Zacarias Moussaoui pointed the finger at the
following Saudi leaders, "The New York Times" reports. Quote, "He said in
the prison deposition that he was directed in 1998 or `99 by al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan to create a digital database of donors to the group"
-- to al Qaeda. "Among those he said he recalled listed in the database
were Prince Turki al Faisal, then the Saudi intelligence chief at the time,
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the long-time Saudi ambassador here to the United
States, Prince al Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor, and
many of the country`s leading clerics."

Now, I want to show you something, an interview right now. I want to
show you what happened to me. In the months right after 9/11, I
interviewed Prince Bandar, who was mentioned there, Bandar bin Sultan, who
was then Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Here was his reaction to my argument
that a lot of people in America thought that the Saudis played a game.
They paid al Qaeda off, they left their kids alone -- it was a younger
generation -- let them go around the world, proselytize, cause trouble,
commit terrorism as long as they left he country of Saudi Arabia alone.
Here`s how he responded.


sense to you, Chris, if bin Laden and his likes (ph), those evil people,
are supposed to be the product of the Saudi religious teachings -- if that
is true and they consider -- bin Laden was in public was saying the Saudis
are infidels, get rid of the infidels, the religious leaders -- are we
stupid? Why would we go and teach people so they can come and attack us?

MATTHEWS: So they can attack somebody else.

BIN SULTAN: The premise is wrong. No. They stopped (ph) to do this.
They could -- what Taliban has been doing for three yours, now five years?
Killing other Afghanistanis, other Muslims!


BIN SULTAN: You just...

MATTHEWS: But you know the sense in this country is that -- that your
government has been very smart to buy off the younger generation...

BIN SULTAN: No, no, no.

MATTHEWS: ... give them all the money they need to go proselytize
around the world and do their dirty will, and leave them alone. They`re
paying protection money, in a sense.

BIN SULTAN: You know what? This is (EXPLETIVE DELETED), to be honest
with you.



MATTHEWS: Well, he said it was BS. He actually used the actual word.

Anyway, Mr. Grenier, what do you make of this right now? Because the
Soviet -- I mean, not Soviet, the -- there`s a mistake -- the Saudi
government obviously denies any role in 9/11. The Bush administration
never accused them of anything, and yet there a lot of people that wonder
how come there were 15 Saudis on that plane out of the 19?

Most of the terrorists, three quarters of them, were Saudis. Bin
Laden comes out that world, angry at their parents, a generational dispute,
but yet it just seemed to me that with all this Wahhabism going on in Saudi
Arabia, all this culture of Islamism, extreme Islamism, how does the Saudi
culture and society, an elite clique, get out of any responsibility for
9/11/ That`s my question. Because he`s pointing the finger at them,
Moussaoui, right now.

you look at Saudi society, I mean, it`s a -- it`s a complicated picture.
And absolutely. I mean, these are Wahabbis. I mean, they are religious...

MATTHEWS: Zealots.

GRENIER: They`re zealous. They`re fundamentalists. And yes,
absolutely, there are wealthy Saudis, others who wanted to proselytize.
And so absolutely. When I lived in Pakistan, there was a large religious
school that was just down the street from me, and it was -- it was built
with Saudi money. That doesn`t necessarily mean -- it casts suspicion on
them. It puts a doubtful light on them. But it doesn`t necessarily

MATTHEWS: Well, what about Moussaoui`s argument now in this
deposition he made this fall that we`re just getting access to now? What
do you make of his accusation? Was it just a desperate prisoner`s effort
to win some sort of relief, or is there truth there?

GRENIER: Yes, I don`t know if he was -- if he was trying to, you
know, build himself up, to make himself seem more important than he was. I
have no brief for either party in this, but...

MATTHEWS: Well, let me go back to Evan on this because this is what
everybody in Washington wants to know right now. Is this guy another
stoolie in prison, trying to BS his way out of prison, or is he a guy who
had something to offer, knowing he`s going to be in prison the rest of his
life and he just wants to do something that has some truth telling to it?
What is your sense of his motive, Evan, when you watch him? Why is he
spilling the beans, if they are the beans?

KOHLMANN: Well, he has no doubt that he`s going to be in prison for
the rest of his life. He knows that. And he`s also up front about the
fact that he still considers himself to be an enemy of the United States.

I think -- my perception is, is that Moussaoui is deeply embittered
towards other members of al Qaeda, as well as the Saudi government, as well
as others, who I think he feels played a role in all this and were not held
to account, and he`s paying the price for that. So there`s no doubt
Moussaoui appears to have very personal reasons for wanting to do this.

But I -- you know, again, I think it`s quite clear he`s not trying to
paint himself as America`s new best friend. And he was also very explicit
about the fact that, look, he wasn`t going to try to play games. He wasn`t
going to try to con us, or at least that`s what he said, because he
realized we had more information about this than he did, and we were asking
him questions from a perspective...


KOHLMANN: We could know exactly what we were asking him about. If he
made up an answer, we would be in a position to know about it immediately.
He could not...


MATTHEWS: OK, let me suggest another interpretation. He`s watching
television. He obviously has access to the news. He knows that we`re in a
coalition right now against ISIS and against the terrorists. And one way
to screw up our coalition is get us suspecting the Saudis of a role in

GRENIER: There you go.

MATTHEWS: It`s a perfect way to bring us all apart. Right?

GRENIER: Absolutely. Absolutely. That`s what I would be trying to
do. I mean, if -- this is somebody who has to hate Saudi Arabia. And this
is somebody who believes, as an article of faith, that if the U.S. ever cut
off support for Saudi Arabia, they would fall. He wants to see these
people fall.

MATTHEWS: Isn`t that possible, Evan, that what this guy is doing is
screwing up our coalition right now by just...

KOHLMANN: It`s always possible, and I think one of the only...

MATTHEWS: ... spreading the seeds of doubt.

KOHLMANN: The only justification here for withholding this
information is if it had some tremendously deleterious impact on U.S.-Saudi
relations. But there`s two things to say about this. Number one, my
understanding is that Moussaoui has been emphasizing this information or
has been trying to put forward this information longer than Saudi Arabia
has been part of our coalition in Iraq and Syria. So that simply doesn`t
make any sense.

I think the other part about this is -- again, I -- I -- Moussaoui
appears to have had this long-standing sense for a while. I really don`t
think this is born of anything recent.


KOHLMANN: Moussaoui is very clear about this. Now, again, I think
everything he says should be measured up against any information we can,
any information about his travel records or others. If we can verify this
with official information, we should do so.

But that`s the point, is there`s no point in withholding this
information anymore. You know, even Saudi Arabia wants...


KOHLMANN: ... the 28 pages from the joint intelligence inquiry out
there. The Saudis want this out there. If the Saudis want this out there,
the families want this out there, the American people want this out there,
then what possible reason is there to not release this information?

If there`s anything in here that implicates the government of Saudi
Arabia, we should know about it. If the information in there exonerates
the government of Saudi Arabia, it`s their right to have that information
and be able to defend themselves...


KOHLMANN: ... knowing what the information actually is.

MATTHEWS: But gentlemen, the United States government, the very much
respected commission on what happened on 9/11 -- it was generally roundly
respected -- said no Saudi government role in 9/11.

GRENIER: They could find no evidence for it.

MATTHEWS: What about this idea...

KOHLMANN: And yet...


MATTHEWS: Evan you make a point, here. I think it`s debatable, but
it`s a good point. He says they should release these 24 (sic) pages of the
Senate and House Investigative Committee on 9/11. Now, I know there`s
always a problem, and I understand it, the decency factor. Do you release
raw data, raw -- I mean, people say the wackiest things to FBI agents. Do
you just throw it out there, and somebody could be a truther out there,
somebody could just be throwing out the theory that this -- and all of a
sudden, that becomes gold. Should they release the 24 pages of the Senate-
House investigation?

GRENIER: Well, we can only speculate. So there may be lots of good
reasons why these 28 pages shouldn`t be put out. As President Bush said
before, you know, there are sources and methods reasons why they shouldn`t
do that. I don`t know, but that`s what the president has said. There may
be some things in that report which are embarrassing to the Saudis and
would -- and would have made it more different for the Saudis to take
effective action in their domestic political context if that stuff were

MATTHEWS: What could it be? What would that be?

GRENIER: Well, for instance, maybe there were members of prominent
Saudi families who it would be very difficult for the Saudis to move
against in an overt way...


GRENIER: ... and yet if this were out there, they would essentially
be sandbagged.

MATTHEWS: Who made the decision, Evan, to release all the Soviet -- I
mean, all the -- why do I keep saying that? -- all the Saudi -- the Saudi
diplomats that went -- they lived right near the -- their embassy is right
next to the -- to the Watergate apartments, of course.

Why did they all get a sort of a free ride out of the country right in
the middle of all that security concern, where nobody was allowed to fly
for a couple hours or a couple days after 9/11? They were given the
exception. people want to know, why were all the Saudis allowed to split
so easily against all the rules at the time?

KOHLMANN: Well, look, I think it`s very easy to answer that. It`s
that these were wealthy and important people. They were -- some of them
were diplomats or they were related to diplomats. They were people that
had a tremendous amount of influence, and they had people that could reach
out to people in our government.

And I think part of the problem is, is that then, as of now, there
were a lot of people who just -- the idea that Saudi Arabia, one of our
closest allies in the Middle East, could have been involved in funding or
coordinating 9/11 -- it sounded ridiculous. It sounded ridiculous.


KOHLMANN: Unfortunately, there`s enough evidence out there from very
credible sources, from people that should have had a reason to know, that
it behooves us to look into those documents and those questions...


KOHLMANN: ... and verify if there`s any truth to them because the FBI
has had information going all the way back to 1995 that wealthy Gulf
governments, wealthy Persian Gulf governments were providing money to al
Qaeda in order to -- protection money, essentially, for their regimes. And
we know that the current king of Saudi Arabia, King Salman, when he was the
governor of Riyadh back in the 1990s -- he was raising money for Saudi
charities that have since been shut down not just by the U.S. government,
but the Saudi government, for funding al Qaeda.

So there`s no doubt that money was exchanged. The question is, is
were the Saudis aware of where that money was going and who they were
contributing to.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, Evan...

KOHLMANN: And any information we have that helps illuminate that
question, I think it`s incumbent upon all of us, including the Saudis, to
be honest in answering that question, now more than 10 years after 9/11.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, you made that point here and you made it in the
"New York Times" front page right at the fold -- I mean, top of the right-
hand side of the paper. You`ve made it in the best slot in the news
business there is, the right-hand side of "The New York Times," and you`re
here tonight. I think people are questioning this. I`m not a truther, but
I think these questions are very healthy to ask.

Anyway, Evan Kohlmann, Robert Grenier, thank you both, gentlemen.

Coming up -- Jeb Bush loves his dad and thinks his brother was a great
president, but for Jeb, being a Bush cuts both ways. The Bush names helps
him. As for the Bush reputation, not so much. Can Jeb Bush divorce
himself from the Bush political record?

Plus, some top Democrats won`t commit to attending Benjamin
Netanyahu`s politically charged speech next month to Congress, the one John
Boehner arranged without telling the president.

Meanwhile, we get word today that his holiness, Pope Francis, is also
coming to address Congress. Is this Boehner asking for a do-over?

And Olympic hero Bruce Jenner is about to become the highest-profile
transgender person in the world. We`re going to talk about what gender`s -
- Jenner`s decision says about tolerance and acceptance in the year 2015.

Finally, "Let Me Finish" with these new questions about the Saudi
involvement in 9/11.

And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Rand Paul is the latest Republican to come out in
opposition to Loretta Lynch, President Obama`s pick for attorney general.
Senator Paul said today in a statement that Lynch, quote, "has a track
record of violating individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution."

Well, yesterday, Texas senator John Cornyn said he won`t support
Lynch. And last week, David Vitter of Lousiana and Jeff Sessions of
Alabama said they`d oppose her, as well.

And we`ll be right back.



JEB BUSH (R), FMR. FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I know some in the media think
conservatives don`t care about the cities, but they`re wrong. We believe
that every American in every community has the right to pursue happiness.
They have the right to rise.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was Jeb Bush, of course,
yesterday in Detroit testing his campaign message for 2016. It`s called a
"right to rise." It sounds a lot like what his brother, George W. Bush,
offered 15 years ago. W. called it "compassionate conservativism."
Anyway, let`s watch George.


not the answer, but the alternative to bureaucracy is not indifference. It
is to put conservative values and conservative ideas into the thick of the
fight for justice and opportunity. This is what I mean by compassionate


MATTHEWS: Well, it`ll be hard for Jeb to run away from that family or
the Bush family name, and the records of both his brother and father. And
the former Florida governor talked about that yesterday. Interesting
conundrum here.


BUSH: I love my dad. In fact, my dad is the greatest man alive. And
if anybody disagrees, we`ll go outside unless you`re, like, 6-5 250 and
much younger than me. Then we`ll negotiate.


BUSH: I`m still not going to change my mind for sure. And I love my
brother, and I think he`s been a great president. It doesn`t bother me a
bit to be proud of them and love them, but I now for a fact that if I`m
going to be successful going beyond the consideration (ph), then I`m going
to have to do it on my own.


MATTHEWS: Well, joining me right now, "The Washington Post`s"
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson, and Republican strategist
Liz Mair.

Let me start with you, since you`re the Republican...


MATTHEWS: ... and proud of it. I think -- it`s interesting because I
think it works, but tell me how it works. You benefit from a fine family
name, Bush, but you don`t have to defend the policies of your relatives,
but somehow, you -- what is it that you`re benefiting from if it`s not the
performance of those two family members?

MAIR: I think...

MATTHEWS: The performance.

MAIR: ... experience of being in the public eye at that level and
putting up with that level of scrutiny. I think a lot of the fund-raising
infrastructure, and I think just the collective knowledge that is bred into
the pool of Bush family advisers that you`re able to tap that a lot of
these other guys can`t.

But I do think you`re right. Jeb Bush is a very different political
animal to his brother, and his brother is very different political animal
to his dad, I think.

There`s a tendency to do a lot of characterization of the Bushes as
moderates. I think that`s very true when you look at George H.W. Bush. I
think when you look at George W. Bush, you`re actually talking about
somebody who I would characterize much more as a big government social

And I think when you`re looking at Jeb Bush, you`re looking at
somebody who actually I think is a bit more of a mainstream conservative,
despite the fact that he`s being depicted as sort of this Republican in
name only at the moment.


You`re Joe out there or Jane out there, a regular person, not a fund
raiser, not an insider, and you go out to the burbs, where the fight is
going to be, the burbs, middle-class burbs. You`re going to say to
somebody, vote for another Bush. But vote for Bush because you`re familiar
with the name and they haven`t stolen any money, so give them another
break, but don`t look back at what the father did or the brother did. How
does that work?

over the hurdle of the name, right?

MATTHEWS: It`s a hurdle.

ROBINSON: You have got to get over the hurdle of, we`re going to have
a third Bush.

MATTHEWS: But isn`t that the reason he has got the bid?


Well, we...


MAIR: It`s a reason he was in position to run for Florida governor.

ROBINSON: Right. Exactly. We say we don`t have dynasties. We do.
OK? We do.


MATTHEWS: Imagine you`re a cereal box. I have been thinking about
this. Imagine you`re a cereal box. I love Kellogg`s. I eat too many
Raisin Bran breakfasts, OK.

Suppose I said I have got a new cereal coming out from Kellogg`s.
Now, you may not have liked the last two you tried, but the next one is
going to be really good, but it is a Kellogg`s, so buy a Kellogg`s. I
mean, who`s going to do that?

ROBINSON: Well, look.

MATTHEWS: You`re going to say, I didn`t like the last two. Why would
I like the next one?

ROBINSON: If you could hark back to the first, right, to George H.W.
Bush, he was frankly an underrated president at the time and his reputation
has improved with the years.

MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s true.


MATTHEWS: He`s almost beloved.

ROBINSON: If you can hark back to that without harking back to George
W. Bush, whose reputation decidedly has not improved.


ROBINSON: It`s a hard thing to do.

MATTHEWS: Will the tough reporter sitting there in a debate situation
let him get away with that, will say, wait a minute, yes or no, was the
Iraq war a smart move and a good move for this country, yes or no, not, is
it better to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Do you still defend that and think
that was the right thing, looking back, looking back on it?

Will he say yes?

MAIR: I don`t know what he will say. I think that there are a number
of questions about that that are going to be very awkward when he`s pinned
on aspects of his family`s record.

MATTHEWS: Should your dad have raised taxes after saying no new
taxes, read my lips? Should he have broken that promise?

MAIR: Right. Which between your dad and your brother did a better
job in terms of gathering allies together to go to war against
fundamentally the same dude?


MATTHEWS: Well, you know the answer to that one.

MAIR: Well, sure, but I think in terms of getting an answer from him,
that`s going to be an awkward situation to deal with in a debate.


ROBINSON: The Iraq war question is really the tough one, I think.


MATTHEWS: It`s tough for Hillary, too.

MAIR: It`s tough. Yes.

MATTHEWS: It`s real tough for Hillary.


MATTHEWS: It`s tough for Biden. It`s tough for Kerry. They still
haven`t explained why they went for the ridiculous arguments of W. and the

ROBINSON: Right. Right. Right.

MAIR: I think fundamentally one of the things that he is going to
have to deal with, the fact that there are aspects of his father`s record
and his brother`s record that people don`t like.

The flip side of that is there are aspects of his father`s record and
his brother`s record that actually he may want to appeal to, too. When
we`re talking about Republican repeal to minority voters, particularly when
we`re talking about Hispanics, maybe that`s an area where it`s good to be a


MATTHEWS: John Sununu has got a new book coming out I have been
looking at in galleys. And it makes the case for Bush Sr. as being a very
aggressive, positive president, with a lot of things done. So we will see.

ROBINSON: One difference on Iraq is that Hillary Clinton has said it
was a mistake. And so will Jeb Bush say that?

MATTHEWS: A mistake.


MATTHEWS: I always wonder about that word mistake. What does mistake

MAIR: She`s still going to be pressed.


MATTHEWS: Ted Cruz was saying -- we`re going to do it in the
"Sideshow." Ted Cruz said he smoked some dope. He made a mistake. He
thought it was a Marlboro? What do you mean by mistake? I went to the
wrong house?

ROBINSON: I shouldn`t have done it. I shouldn`t have done it.

MATTHEWS: Oh, I see. It`s a broader notion of mistake.

ROBINSON: I shouldn`t have done it.


MATTHEWS: I joined the Marines. That was a mistake joining the
Marines. That was a mistake. I thought it -- I should have joined the
Coast Guard. I don`t know.


MATTHEWS: Anyway, yesterday, Jeb Bush gave President Obama some
credit -- this is fascinating -- for an improving economy, but also
criticized the president for a slow recovery. I said it slow.


JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: It`s true enough that we have
seen recent good gains and it`s welcome news for the economy, but it is
very little and it has come very late.

Six years after the recession ended, median incomes are down.
Households are on average poor, and millions of people have given up
looking for work altogether.


MATTHEWS: But the recession Jeb was speaking about there was the
worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And it started when
his brother, George W., was president.


weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their
future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We have seen
triple-digit swings in the stock market.

Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse,
and some have failed. We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis,
and the federal government is responding with decisive action.


MATTHEWS: Well, here`s a really good line. I don`t think if you
heard it yet, Gene or Liz.

At last week`s annual Alfalfa Club dinner -- that`s a meeting here, a
dinner of big shots, business guys -- California Senator Dianne Feinstein
joked about another Bush seeking the White House -- quote -- "Jeb Bush
looks like he`s running for president, so now we know what the Bush family
means by no child left behind."


MAIR: It was a good line.


ROBINSON: That`s a great line.


ROBINSON: Great line.

MATTHEWS: So this is strange. The old man, the father, who has
become increasingly beloved in his country, is late in life. We know that.


MATTHEWS: He will be out there raising the flag for his son. W. will
as well. How does it all work together? The sort of reasonable centrist,
pragmatist, what do you call them, realist policies of his father again the
neocon-ish policies of the son, does he -- does Jeb do what he seemed like
he`s going to do, saying, I`m going to triangulate, I`m going to be
something else besides both of them?

Is that what he`s going to do?

ROBINSON: Well, I think he is somewhat different from both of them.
And I think that`s what he has to be.

Ultimately, he`s got to be -- carve out this image and this reality of
himself as different from his brother, different from his father. If he
doesn`t, I don`t think he goes anywhere.

MATTHEWS: Liz, you`re in the business. Liz, will the word, the
phrase reform conservative, will it work?

MAIR: Hard to say, honestly, very hard to say.

MATTHEWS: Does it sound like moderate?

MAIR: I don`t think it sounds like moderate necessarily.

My question that I have is that you get into some difficulty when
you`re talking about reform conservatives and what they want to do with the
tax code vs. people who really want to just flatten things out. And so
that`s a real tension when you get into those economic policy debates with
people who are very wonkish and care about that.

But I agree with you that I think Jeb Bush is different to his father
and to his brother. That`s what we were discussing last. And I think that
the most important thing that any presidential candidate can do, and this
includes Jeb, is be authentic, be who they actually are.

At the end of the day, the voters may not like that, and they may go
against you, but doing the inauthenticity thing and flip-flopping and
trying to make yourself into something you`re not, they reject that every


MATTHEWS: I`m waiting to see who his foreign policy team is. If he
hires John Bolton, I`m leaving.

Anyway, thank you, Eugene Robinson.


MATTHEWS: Thank you, Liz Mair.

MATTHEWS: Coming up -- I forget. John Bolton is running himself for

Coming up, Ted Cruz, marijuana and why Seth Meyers says kids should
just say no. Anyway, the "Sideshow" is coming up next.

This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.



for Senator Ted Cruz said yesterday that Cruz tried marijuana as a teen,
but hasn`t used it since. He has not used it since he tried it as a teen.

So, you hear that, kids? Just trying it once can make you go crazy.




MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL and time now for the "Sideshow."

That was of course "Late Night"`s Seth Meyers on Senator Ted Cruz`s
admission this week that he smoked marijuana as a teenager, a decision that
his spokesperson described as a mistake. What, did he think he was smoking
something else, like a Marlboro?

Anyway, next is the debate over measles vaccinations continues, the
Centers for Disease Control is fighting recent outbreaks of the disease
throughout the country.

Here`s what Jimmy Fallon had to say about that last night.


just announced that they`re currently 102 measles cases in the U.S. Yes.
Some say it`s because people aren`t vaccinating their children.

You can tell things are getting bad, though. Today, Disneyland opened
a new ride called It`s a Smallpox World.


FALLON: And even Hillary Clinton is weighing in on the measles
outbreak. She -- check out what she tweeted out earlier this week. "The
earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work."



FALLON: She actually didn`t stop there. Look at what else she
tweeted. "Fire is hot, ice is cold, and the Seahawks should have handed it
off to Marshawn Lynch."



FALLON: They should have.


MATTHEWS: Well, it`s been a month since Senate Minority Leader now
Harry Reid`s exercise accident, but he still bears the battle scars, of
course, including a swollen right eye. There he is.

As Reid describes it, he was working out at home using an exercise
band that snapped, tossing him on to some furniture. Well, shortly after
the incident, Reid, who used to be a boxer himself, joked about the source
of the injury.


SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: As most people know, I
fought for a couple years. After any one of those fights, I never looked
like I do now.

However, I didn`t get this black eye by sparring with Manny, by
challenging Floyd Mayweather. I didn`t go bull riding. I wasn`t riding a
motorcycle. I was exercising in my new home.


MATTHEWS: Reid, of course, was referring to Manny Pacquiao, the
welterweight champion of the world.

Well, yesterday, the 75-year-old lawmaker encountered Pacquiao in
person on Capitol Hill, tweeting: "Explained my injury to Manny Pacquiao.
He also told me he`s ready to fight Floyd Mayweather. Let`s make it

Up next, big news today. Pope Francis is addressing Congress, and the
announcement comes after John Boehner got in a world of trouble for
inviting Benjamin Netanyahu without ever telling the White House. That`s
ahead with the roundtable.

And you`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.


Here`s what`s happening.

John Kerry is in Ukraine, where he`s promised millions in aid to help
victims of rising violence in the east, where troops are fighting pro-
Russian rebels. Kerry also urged Russia to end its support for separatists
in that region.

Five children have been diagnosed with measles at a Chicago day care
center. An outbreak that began at Disney parks in California has now
spread to more than 100 people in at least 14 states.

And struggling retailer RadioShack has filed for bankruptcy
protection. It plans to sell up to 2,400 stores -- back to HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

There was big news from Capitol Hill today. Speaker John Boehner
announced that Pope Francis has accepted an invitation to speak to the
United States Congress this coming September. That`s an historic first for
a pope, of course.

Meanwhile, another congressional invitation for Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu continues to anger many Democrats. That`s because the news
blindsided the White House, including the president. It seems aimed at
scuttling negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

And it comes just two weeks before Israeli elections, of course.
That`s the Netanyahu invitation. Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and the
Israeli Knesset speaker were on Capitol Hill yesterday trying to calm
Democrats. According to Politico -- quote -- "It didn`t work. If
anything, Democrats finished the day more frustrated. Seven Jewish
Democratic members of Congress lit into Dermer. The invitation, they said,
was making these choose between Netanyahu and Obama, making support for
Israel into a partisan issue they never wanted it to be and forcing them to
consider a boycott of the speech."

Meanwhile, Senator Dick Durbin called the invitation of Netanyahu a
serious mistake by the speaker and by the prime minister.

And here was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today.


friendships in terms of country to country, leaders to leaders. It`s
really something that we should be able to resolve. Maybe we have to even
review the idea of joint sessions of Congress, because they should not be a
political arena two weeks before an election.

There are some people who just think it`s outrageous. Some staunch
supporters of Israel have called me and said it`s outrageous -- and they
are supporters of Netanyahu -- that our floor of the House would be used,
exploited in that way for a political purpose in Israel and in the United


MATTHEWS: Well, nevertheless, Pelosi said she intended to go to the

For more, I`m joined right now by tonight`s roundtable. Michael
Steele is the former chair of the Republican National Committee, of course,
and an MSNBC political analyst. Amanda Terkel is senior political reporter
for The Huffington Post. And Ken Vogel is chief investigative reporter for

Michael, former seminarian, I have to ask you about the -- I think the
nice news here is that some time in September, we`re all going to feel
really good about ourselves.


MATTHEWS: I think that`s going to be a positive night for the

STEELE: I think everyone is generally psyched for the pope to come to
America, period, particularly this pope, who has endeared himself in a way
that transcends what faith you are.

But then to have him come and speak to the Congress, a joint session
of Congress, is going to be profoundly important, because it will allow him
an opportunity on American soil to connect some dots, if you will, Cuba and
the United States and the role that he played there.

MATTHEWS: So you expect substance?

STEELE: I think there will be some substance.


STEELE: I think, not a whole lot, because the pope doesn`t want to
step on anything politically for the president and certainly not get into
that so much, but I think he`ll have a chance to really lay out a very
interesting conversation that a lot of Americans will appreciate. And war
and peace issues related to that, and certainly what`s going on in the
Middle East right now. So, I think the pope will have some profound things
to say.

MATTHEWS: Amanda, it seems to me there would be a lot of crowds along
that center aisle when he comes in.


MATTHEWS: You know how they always gang-attack the president when he
comes in. They want all their pictures taken, both sides. I think a lot
of members will want their pictures taken with this fellow.

TERKEL: Both Pelosi and Boehner are Catholic. I think there will be
some substance. I think also, domestically, you may hear the pope saying
things that you hear a lot of candidates saying right now -- issues of
poverty, income inequality, helping the poor is something this pope has
made sort of a centerpiece.

MATTHEWS: How does he stay off the hot ones?

KEN VOGEL, POLITICO: I don`t think he does, talking about Cuba.

MATTHEWS: Well, do you think he`s going to talk about life, he`s
going to talk about abortion?


MATTHEWS: Is he going to talk about same sex?

VOGEL: He talked about gay rights in a way that I see made some
conservatives uncomfortable. They wonder --

MATTHEWS: I`m talking about the really hot buttons. Does he sort of
do like to do with the state of the Union, he has to hit all the
(INAUDIBLE) buttons?

VOGEL: Whether he actually does or not, it`s sort of the backdrop to
this. And there are political implications here. Catholics are key swing
constituency. They`re socially conservative. Maybe they`re economically a
little more liberal -- well, this pope is a little bit shifting that
balance in a way that again I think makes some conservatives a little
leery, some Democrats kind of happy.

STEELE: I think on that point, the interesting thing is the following
month is when the pope will have the Synod on the Family, and a lot of this
visit is going to be centered around the family, his coming to America.

As we just saw played out last year, when he threw that tell me what
you think, cardinals, about, you know, divorce and the structure of the
American -- of the family as a whole, you saw some very interesting
dynamics. This pope likes to sort of toss out and sort of get a feel. I
think you`re going to see some things tossed up to get a feel of where
America is, and then he`ll come and address those issues, and I think --

MATTHEWS: I think he has to talk to people like the wife who`s in a
terrible marriage and it`s over, you know, it just is over and she`s there
alone. You have to talk to that person, who are victims of bad marriages.
You have to talk to a lot of people who are gay, who are born gay, that`s
how they feel, that`s who they are, and start talking to them as God`s
people. He could do a lot of good there.

Anyway, here`s John Boehner, the speaker, last week explaining why he
invited the Israeli prime minister. Let`s see if it sounds like politics
was involved at all.


prime minister of Israel has a strong voice. He believes that the threat
of the Iranians having a nuclear weapon is a very serious threat. The
Israeli prime minister can also talk with some expertise about the growing
threat of radical Islam. We`ve got a serious problem mountain world and
the president just wants to act like it`s just going to disappear, so as a
coequal branch of our government, I don`t have any problem at all in doing
what I did to invite the prime minister to come to Congress and address
those concerns.


MATTHEWS: You know, one thing I think is not fair is to suggest the
prime minister speaks for Israeli public opinion, pure and simple. You can
go to Israel and argue about anything over there. It`s a very free
country. You can be (INAUDIBLE), you can be (INAUDIBLE) now. You can be
all across the board, Tzipi Livni. You have a right to speak.

He`s going to come over and define Israeli foreign policy, define the
U.S. interest and the Israel and say this is a fact, when in fact his Likud
(ph) on the right, with a right bloc of people that are to the right of
most Israelis. Your thoughts, Ken?


MATTHEWS: He`s not speaking for the average Jewish people in Israel.
He just isn`t.

VOGEL: Well, I think there is sort of a lion`s share of population
that is with him when it comes to Iran. However, that`s not what will
decide this election. The election is by no means a slam dunk even if he -

MATTHEWS: Do you think average Israeli is a bombs away when it comes
to Iran?

VOGEL: I think the average Israeli is probably closer to him than is
to Tzipi Livni.

MATTHEWS: The bombing? I think he is.

VOGEL: The bombing, you know, I`m not prepared to state (ph) to the
polling on that.

MATTHEWS: You think he`s for a two-state solution? Most Israelis
are. Do you think he`s for a two-state solution, honestly?

VOGEL: He does not seem to me.

MATTHEWS: I agree with you on that.

You agree with me. Go ahead?

TERKEL: I mean, this is essentially a campaign stop for him. And
that`s what I think that`s why some Democrats are trying to push, if you
want him to come, that`s fine, but why don`t you delay it until after the
Israeli election, so it doesn`t look as political.

MATTHEWS: Who you do think timed it? Do we know it? Was it Dermer,
his ambassador here, or is it him? Or --

TERKEL: Reports -- I don`t know who timed it, but reports say the
idea originated with Ron Dermer.

STEELE: Yes, with Dermer. You know, at the end of the day, the
reality still remains he`s going to come --

MATTHEWS: Dermer, by the way, says that he`s a civil servant, and I
take him at his word. So, he shouldn`t be arranging a political oriented
meeting, right?

TERKEL: I think that`s what made people so uncomfortable is that it
seemed like behind the scenes, he was strategizing with Republicans. Only
now, he`s reaching to Democrats.

VOGEL: I think it helps Republicans. It helps John Boehner. It
helps Republican re-seize (ph) the mantle.

MATTHEWS: Mike Brooks (ph) is in heaven, the guy who does the Jewish
outreach for the Republican National Committee after the Scalise case
hanging out with neo-Nazi, I think it`s a change of topics.

STEELE: You guys are glossing over the substance of what could come
out of this visit, dealing with the concern that the Israelis and a lot of
Americans particular in Congress have about what we`re doing with Iran,
what the administration is failing to do with Iran.

The administration wants room to negotiate with Iran. The Israelis
are very uncomfortable with that. The global partnerships we have are
saying you can`t trust these guys. So, at the end of the day, this is an
opportunity to sort of put a stake in that particular heart when it comes
to what the administration wants to do in Iran. So, there is, yes, the
politics of it, but there is also a real substance to what the, you know,
Congress and --

MATTHEWS: What`s the alternative to trying to negotiate an end to
their perhaps move toward a nuclear weapon? What`s the alternative to
trying to stop them before they get there? Is there some other policy that
would keep them from having nuclear weapons than trying to talk them out of
it through a combination of big --


VOGEL: Not obviously -- there is the advocacy on the Israeli right
for a nuclear -- for a military strike.

MATTHEWS: Which you do every couple of years. You have to keep doing
every couple of years, because you can tell, the minute we bomb them, or
Israelis bomb them with our help, they`re going to go right back to
rebuilding with 100 percent Iranian support for that. You`re never going
to stop again.


MATTHEWS: So you have to stop them before they do it, I think.

Anyway, thank you. We agree on the need to stop them.

The roundtable is staying with us.

Up next, this will blow your socks off. What is Bruce Jenner`s
decision to say about tolerance and acceptance in this country in 2015?

This is HARDBALL, a place for politics.


MATTHEWS: President Obama is considering arming Ukraine with lethal
weapons in its fight against pro-Russian separatists, and we`ll decide
whether to go forward soon. Well, that`s news. That`s the word from
Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in Kiev today. Kerry says our
interest is not a proxy war with Russia, but using all of our options to
change Russia`s behavior in eastern Ukraine. Kerry`s visit comes as the
leaders every France and Germany push a new peace proposal to the leaders
in both Ukraine and Russia.

And we`ll be right back.



REPORTER: Everyone has their own idea of perfection. What would be
perfection for you in the 10 events?

BRUCE JENNER: Winning the Olympic Games, it`s that simple.


MATTHEWS: When Bruce Jenner broke the Decathlon record at the
Montreal Summer Olympics in 1976, he was held as the world`s greatest
athlete. Overnight, Jenner became a national figure, attaining a celebrity
status that many people did not believe. Now, 39 years later, Jenner is
again at the forefront of the national conversation, with reports that he
might transition into becoming a woman. And this comes as attitudes in
this country on gender identity are changing dramatically, of course.

Quote, "New York Times" columnist Nick Kristof wrote today that,
quote, "considering the violence and discrimination that transgender people
endure, no one would go through this exception for the most profound
motivations, to be authentic to ones inner self. Jenner seems to be
preparing for a bold publish mission involving something intensely personal
in a way that should open up minds and hearts. So, in my book, Bruce
Jenner is now a gold medalist again. Come on, Wheaties, it`s time to put
Jenner back on the box." That`s Nick Kristof from "The Times" today.

We`re back with the panel, Michael, Amanda and Ken.

Amanda, what do you make of this in terms of our culture and the way
we look at things as opposed to 40 some years ago.

TERKEL: Well, I mean, I think transgender issues are getting a lot
more attention, especially with shows like "Orange is the New Black". I
think many people are a little bit weary. It`s important to note that
Bruce Jenner has not confirmed that he is planning to transition. There`s
been a lot of reports about it. Right, or at all. He has not really
commented --

MATTHEWS: But the pictures that you see suggest it.

TERKEL: So -- and his mother gave an interview saying she didn`t
confirm it, but she is very proud of him. He`s being very courageous. So,
I think people are weary. His family, reality show is not the most
tasteful and classy affair.

So, if he does decide to document his transition, is it going to be
more like what we have seen from his family, or is it going to be an
intimate portrayal of what it`s like emotionally and physically transition?

MATTHEWS: Yes, you mentioned physically. He had his Adams apple
shaved. There is differences in his face that make him more feminine.

VOGEL: Grow his hair out. Yes, I mean, this is like the last
frontier for gay rights. It is a subject that makes folks uncomfortable --

MATTHEWS: It`s also informative, and there is queue out there, people
who are not quite sure, and I have to sympathize or empathize with the
people who have a disconnect with the way they were born and the way they
feel. I mean, it`s just a fact. These are people that didn`t think of
being transgender, they have something in them.

VOGEL: This is a sort of a challenge for public policy. We have
legislation that protects or that seeks to protect employment,
nondiscrimination, ENDA, there`s a bill. And even as recently as 2007
there was a big debate about having transgender protections in the bill was
seen as a deal breaker. So, this is something that I think our society is
still kind of gravitate away.

MATTHEWS: Every HR department is looking at this not negatively.

By the way, we have come a long way from these conditions being joke-
worthy. It`s a big difference. Instead of joking and laughing at people,
we go -- I`d like to know more what`s it feel like, what cause you do to
this, it`s an opening that we haven`t had before.

Last December, in fact, in Ohio, Lela Alcorn (ph) committed suicide
after struggling with her own gender identity. The note she left behind
described the concerns of many in the transgender community.

Quote, "The only way I will rest in peace is if transgender people
aren`t treated the way I was. They are treated like humans with valid
feelings and human rights. My death needs to mean something." Well, I
can`t say it better than that.

Thank you, Michael Steele, Amanda Terkel, and Ken Vogel.

And I`ll be right back after this.


MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with these questions about the Saudi
involvement in 9/11. The facts sitting there in front of us are hard to
deny. Bin Laden, a Saudi, was behind the attack. Fifteen of the
terrorists aboard those planes were Saudi, 15 out of 19.

Somehow these facts got conveniently erased by a Bush administration
that: (a), wanted to keep good relations with the Saudi government, i.e.,
the Saudi royal family, and, (b), wanted desperately to attack Iraq and
therefore just as earnestly wanted to direct voter anger toward it.

There is always something murky about what happened on September 11,
2001. Why did that warning about al Qaeda to attack in the United States
get by us? What did the administration know about the Saudi role in 9/11?
Was there a policy by its government to close its eyes to what bin Laden
outside Saudi Arabia, as long as they left the government there alone?

And how much did the zealots brand of Islam preach in Saudi Arabia,
led to the actions of its people, especially those 15 terrorists who struck
us on the worst act of violence ever perpetrated in this country? Good
questions. Who wouldn`t want them answered? Think about it. Who

And 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.>