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

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Thursday, February 26th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Date: February 26, 2015
Guest: Raffaello Pantucci, Tom Sanderson, Lt. Col. John Nagl, Al Cardenas,
Mercedes Schlapp

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Now we know him, so how do we get him?

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews up in New York.

And ever since ISIS started terrorizing Americans this past summer
with horrific beheadings, one man has personified the killers without ever
showing his face. The masked murderer appeared in the beheading video of
American journalist James Foley in August, and then again in the videos of
Steven Satloff, British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, and
American humanitarian Peter Kassig. He was last seen in the beheading
video of the Japanese journalist Kenji Goto in January.

With a distinct British accent, he often taunted the West.




MATTHEWS: "I`m back, Obama." Well, the irreverent British press have
dubbed him "Jihadi John," but we now know who he is. "The Washington Post"
reported today his name is Mohammed Emwazi. He`s thought to be about 27
years old, born in Kuwait. He grew up in London. He comes from a well-to-
do family and is a college graduate who studied computer programming. A
U.S. intelligence official confirmed his identity to NBC News.

How do we account for this journey from middle class Londoner to
vicious executioner? "The Washington Post" offers a few hints. In 2009,
he traveled to Tanzania, where he and two friends were detained by police.
He later said that British authorities detained him again when he returned
to Europe. The next year, he tried to move back to his homeland of Kuwait,
but reportedly was prevented from doing so by authorities.

Well, according to the BBC, he came to the attention of the
counterterrorism officials in Britain as an associate of two men thought to
be involved with extremists over in Africa. Emwazi eventually made he way
to Syria and joined ISIS. Along with two other Brits, he guarded Western
hostages. The three were dubbed "the Beatles" because of their accents.

And by all accounts, they were deliberately brutal. A source familiar
with the hostages told NBC News back in August, quote, "They were really
rough with the hostages. Whenever the Beatles showed up, there was some
kind of physical beating or torture."

Well, "The New York Times" said, quote, "They seemed to take pleasure
in brutalizing them." The abuse included prolonged beatings, mock
executions and repeated waterboarding.

For more on the identity of this brutal man, I`m joined right now by
NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who`s over in Istanbul.
Richard, what do we know about Mohammed Emwazi?

RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, you outlined his biography,
and I think one of the key things is he was so well known to British
authorities, to British intelligence and law enforcement. And we keep
seeing this. That was the case in Paris, where the two shooters were
known, the two brothers were well known, had been under surveillance. The
man who opened fire in that cafe in Sydney, Australia, also had been under
surveillance, actually was out on bail for allegedly murdering his wife.
So in all of these cases, we have people who have been tracked, and yet
somehow managed to slip through the cracks.

Not very surprising that he came from a middle class or somewhat
better than middle class upbringing. People who are being attracted to
ISIS have to pay their own way. This is -- these are not necessarily the
poor and destitute who have no jobs. These are people who are
ideologically driven to join a cause, to join the caliphate.

He went there. He started out as a guard, one of the "Beatles"
guarding Western hostages, brutalizing them, involved in waterboard and
other forms of torture. And then with these execution videos, he rose in
prominence and became one of the group`s most effective recruiters, became
one of the group`s most effective spokesmen.

And the propaganda arm of ISIS has been incredibly effective in
drawing other people just lime Mohammed Emwazi. According to estimates,
there are about 15,000 foreign fighters, most of them from Arab countries,
and around 3,000 to 4,000 from Western countries, just like the man from
London now identified as Mohammed Emwazi.

MATTHEWS: Is it reasonable, Richard, to assume that they do this, put
a guy out with a British accent in order to tell the people, Come on in,
the water is fine, to encourage like-minded people of that background, of -
- you know, people with an Islamic background with a predilection perhaps
towards this political point of view, if not the violence, by their
attitude about living in a different country?

What is the motivation, by the way, if it`s not money -- and I never
thought it was -- for this ideological shift to the point of being a

ENGEL: Well, this is obviously someone who is deeply disturbed,
someone who beheaded repeatedly and on camera. What motivates someone to
do that? You`d have to look into the mind of a murderer.

What motivates people to join ISIS is something of a push and a pull.
There is this -- the draw of joining the caliphate, the idea that has
always been in circles in the Islamic world that the caliphate is something
that needs to be restored, that one day will be restored, and that it is an
Islamic duty to go and find and be part of the caliphate.

Then there is the group itself, which is advertising on line all the
time, on Twitter, on social media, telling people, Come, the water is warm,
come on in, and his beheadings were a key part of that messages campaign,
to show power, really, because if you remember, in all of these videos,
he`s standing. He`s holding his knife. He`s wearing a holster. He`s
speaking and carrying himself with a swagger. He`s calling President Obama
just -- you know, just referring to him as "Obama."


ENGEL: And it shows power as his hostages kneeling, cowering in front
of him in an orange jumpsuit, about to be beheaded. And I think that`s
what it`s all about, for people who are angry, who want to see a change in
the world, who want to see the Islamic world stand on its feet again, that
this group represents people who are taking action, and who won`t say no
and are standing while their oppressors are kneeling, about to die.

MATTHEWS: That`s a very emphatic description. Thank you so much,
Richard Engel over in Istanbul.

I`m joined right now by Raffaello Pantucci. He`s the director of
International Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute.

Well, what did you make of that assessment by Richard Engel that we`re
looking at someone who might be psychopathic or sociopathic in terms of
what they do in beheading people, but their overall orientation is this
extremist ideology, which, basically, I guess it`s fair to say, justifies
the worst kind of behavior on the way toward the caliphate?

INSTITUTE: Well, I think that`s probably a pretty accurate
characterization, in some ways. I mean, what you`re dealing with is,
fundamentally, a movement to create a new alternative world and to create a
sort of -- you know, this is a political -- politically motivated terrorist
organization, so it`s all about trying to show that they`re creating a new
state. And this is the vanguard state that is leading the sort of clash of
civilizations that they see that`s happening in the world between the
Muslim world and the West.

And this guy is sort of standing up, you know, as Richard Engel
pointed out, you know, with these sort of people cowering before him,
talking directly to the president of the United States. He`s really
standing up. It`s sort of -- it`s a real show of strength and a real show
of power, and really showing that what they`re doing in this Islamic State,
as they so call it, is really creating a sort of a new world and something
that is attractive and that people who sort of want to get excited and are
sort of drawn to these sorts of ideas have a place to go to.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask about the real psycho part of this. How
do you get people to believe that their prisoners, in this case captives,
are evil, that they justify this kind of end and this kind of humiliating
end to their lives?

PANTUCCI: Well, I think, you know, it`s probably individual cases
have different sort of rationales behind them. It`s possible some of these
people -- and if we look at sort of historical cases, there is some
evidence that some people have social or psychopathic issues. But often,
what really happens is this is a slow path (ph). So we look at a figure
like this, this Mohammed Emwazi, we know he went out there a while ago. He
may have initially participated in some training. He may have been
involved in some fighting. But then he sort of seems to have risen up the
ranks from that.

And you know, as sort of becomes more involved in the conflict and the
whole situation becomes more dehumanizing, it becomes easier maybe to
accept that this is the sort of thing that needs to be done to really
advance your cause and advance your message.

And then, of course there`s the other aspect of, you know, once he has
been maybe told by his superiors to do something like this, you know, it`s
difficult to say no. And so then you`re sort of tied into that. And once
you participate and really wrap yourself into the group, maybe you become
stuck in these sorts of choices.

So I think, you know, we have to look at it as something that doesn`t
happen overnight or suddenly. It`s probably something that happens over a
longer period of time, and it`s sort of a brutalization of an individual.

MATTHEWS: Yes, I keep thinking of the SS in World War II. Anyway,
thank you so much, Raffaello Pantucci.

There`s news tonight on that other major ISIS story, the arrest of
those men from Brooklyn yesterday, who were accused of plotting to fight
for ISIS. Tonight, a fourth man has been arrested by federal agents. He`s
being questioned in connection to the other men, but he has not been
charged in that conspiracy. Rather, he`s being held on immigration

Yesterday, New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton warned of
the danger that happens if people like this fail in their effort to travel
overseas and decide to wage jihad back here.


is the concern about the lone wolf inspired to act without ever going to
the Mideast, or the concern of once they get to the Mideast, acquire
fighting skills, capabilities, and then attempting to return to the


MATTHEWS: FBI director James Comey also made clear the threat is very


JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: We have investigations of people in
various stages of radicalizing in all 50 states. I tell my state and local
partners this is about all of us being connected tightly to each other.
This isn`t a New York phenomenon or a Washington phenomenon. This is all
50 states, and in ways that are very hard to see.


MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by Thomas Sanderson. He`s co-director
of the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Mr. Sanderson, thank you for this.

Do you have a clue about why someone living in America, or living in
Western Europe, especially here, though, which -- we take pride in this
country and our ability to assimilate people, not always perfectly, but you
can become an American within one generation in most cases, fully American
in your culture, your attitudes, your comfort in this country.

What is the problem with these people that don`t fit?

TOM SANDERSON, CSIS: Well, it may have nothing to do with their
experience in America, though sometimes it does. In Europe, it has more
with their experience there in Europe. For these young guys, and many
others who want to go over to Syria and Iraq, it`s about what`s happening
there, the sense of -- and hatred over those who are fighting, those who
they`re fighting against, the Shia, those who are engaged in the coalition,
the defense of the caliphate.

All of these things are highly motivating and would push someone,
whether they are integrated or not in the United States, to go over and
fulfill a mission that they feel they have a duty to fulfill.

MATTHEWS: But why would they want to go over and kill Christian --
Coptic Christians or Yazidis or other Sunni? It`s not Sunni versus Shia in
so many cases. How do we explain the fact they`re just out to kill, it
seems to me, anybody in their path.

SANDERSON: Well, look, there`s a different story and motivation
behind each person. They may be interested in killing Christians or other
Sunnis they don`t -- they deem insufficiently Muslim, or they`re largely
going after Shia. So it totally depends on which one we`re talking about

MATTHEWS: What about that threat that Bill Bratton, the New York
police commissioner, just mentioned on this tape, that if they get
confounded in their efforts to get over there to the Islamic State to help
develop the caliphate and make it grow, that they might move here -- I
mean, act at home.

SANDERSON: Absolutely. Well, think about those that are living in a
sense of marginalization, where they don`t feel they have capability or
power or a sense of purpose. They want to go over and fight, yet they`re
unable to do it. That compounds their sense of impotency and then leaves
them with few options, which includes attacking in place, either where they
live or traveling to other parts of the United States.

So those that fail to go over and that are motivated to go over, they,
I think, are very dangerous individuals because they now feel even more
incapable of fulfilling their duty, and they`ll look around them and see
plenty of targets.

MATTHEWS: Yes, all they have to do is find a semiautomatic weapon of
some kind and they can do mass killing.

SANDERSON: Absolutely, which is very simple in the States.

MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, it`s too handy. Anyway, thank you, Tom
Sanderson, for that expertise.

Coming up -- more and more Americans say they support military action
against ISIS, even American boots on the ground. How will President Obama,
the president who got us out of Iraq, deal with this growing call to get us
back in?

Plus, the red hots on the right host their annual CPAC jamboree, and
the name of the game for this crowd is who can hate President Obama and
Hillary Clinton the most.

And Donald Trump says this time, he really means it. He says he`s
serious about running for president in 2016. So I say once again it`s
"Peanuts" time, and once again, Lucy is really promising Charlie Brown that
she really won`t pull that football away.

Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the face of evil behind the ISIS mask.

And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: The United States Senate will vote to fund the Department
of Homeland Security before the money runs out at midnight tomorrow night.
But on the House side, John Boehner refuses to say how he`ll protect the


what the Senate can or can`t do, and -- and then we`ll make decisions about
how we`re going to proceed.

QUESTION: With respect, Mr. Speaker, your answer is about what you`re
going to do the same as yesterday. Can we -- we -- Mitch McConnell has
said exactly what he`s going to do. You know exactly what you`re going to
get. It`s going to be a clean DHS funding bill. Are you going to put it
on the floor? Are you going to kill it? Do you want a vote on it? Have
you even had this discussion.


BOEHNER: When I make decisions, I`ll let you know.


MATTHEWS: Blowing a kiss there. Well, anyway, meanwhile, U.S.
Congressman Peter King of New York, a Republican, is up in arms over his
party`s inability to get its act together and fund Homeland Security.
Yesterday, he tweeted that, quote, "There are terrorist attacks all over
the world, and we`re talking about closing down Homeland Security? This is
like living in the world of the crazy people."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is using that tweet from
Congressman King to pressure Republicans to hold a clean vote on DHS
funding. And here`s what King said about that on "ANDREA MITCHELL


REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Whatever it takes to get it done. And
it shows how off the rails the Republican Party is. We`re allowing Nancy
Pelosi to be the spokeswoman for Homeland Security. That should be our
issue. We`re the ones who are the party of Homeland Security, and that`s
why these people who say they`re conservative, who say they`re Republicans
-- they`re the ones who are really going to ruin the Republican Party. So
we have to end this, and the speaker has to bring this to a vote.


MATTHEWS: I think Congressman King is embarrassed by his party.

We`ll be right back after this.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, support is growing for
U.S. ground war against ISIS in this country. According to a new Pew
Research poll, support for American ground troops to fight ISIS has grown
by 8 points since October -- 47 percent now favor a U.S. ground war in that
poll, and that poll is hardly an outlier. CNN`s most recent poll showed a
9-point jump in support for ground troops to fight ISIS. And according to
this month`s CBS News poll, 57, a strong percentage of the country, now
supports sending U.S. troops to the Mideast. That`s an 18-point increase
since September.

So how does President Obama deal with this growing call for war with
the bad guys? John Nagl is a retired air lieutenant -- lieutenant colonel
-- Army lieutenant colonel, a counterinsurgency expert and the author of
"Knife Fights," and Eugene Robinson, of course, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning
columnist with "The Washington Post."

Colonel Nagl, please tell us how you would use ground troops to defeat
ISIS, or help defeat them?

LT. COL. JOHN NAGL, U.S. ARMY (ret.): So we currently have some 3,000
American combat troops in Iraq. They are forbidden from embedding with
Iraqi units outside the wire. They are forbidden from engaging in combat.

I would multiply that number by five. I`d have 15,000 American
advisers, combat advisers embedded inside every Iraqi and Kurdish unit.
They would accompany those units to the front lines. They would call in
air strikes. They would provide front-line intelligence, and they would
help us defeat ISIS in very short order.

MATTHEWS: What would happen if one of those embedded officers or men
were captured and beheaded in some sort of horrific, dramatic fashion?
Wouldn`t that cause this country to go for a much greater escalation right
on the spot?

NAGL: This country should go for a much greater escalation. We need
to defeat ISIS.

MATTHEWS: Well, then what do you think we have to do? We -- 15,000
is just the ante here?

NAGL: No, I think 15,000 is a good number.

We want the Iraqi and Kurdish forces to do most of the fighting, most
of the killing, and, frankly, most of the dying. Some Americans may well
die in that effort, but as the president has correctly stated, we have to
defeat and ultimately destroy ISIS. They are a threat to us, to our
friends and our interests around the globe. They have to be defeated, and
they have to be defeated soon.

MATTHEWS: I`m not asking tricky questions. I just want to know the
trajectory here.

You said if they grabbed one of our guys and beheaded them, we would
probably have the urge, the feeling that we should escalate with more
troops there. Is there a limit on your thinking to how far we can engage?

NAGL: I don`t...

MATTHEWS: How far can we go without making this an American war?

NAGL: I don`t think we need much more than 15,000. I do think
Americans will die in that effort, and I think this effort is so important
that that price is worth paying.

MATTHEWS: And when we take the ground back from ISIS -- and I would
love to see us do it -- if we take the ground back from them in Iraq or in
Syria, who do we turn it over to for the occupation?

NAGL: We`re going to need a long-term presence of American advisers
supporting Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces to occupy that territory for
probably a generation to come.

MATTHEWS: But what country does -- gets sovereignty over it?

NAGL: It`s Iraq.


MATTHEWS: Does the Iraq government led by Shia take over Sunni
territory? Would that work?

NAGL: It does and it will, as long as the Shia-dominated government
of Iraq continues to provide legal protections to the Sunnis. Hopefully,
it`s learned its lesson.

MATTHEWS: Hopefully. Well, that`s a hopeful line.

Let`s go to Eugene Robinson.

What do you think the president has to do. And you know the politics
as well as I do. The pressure is growing, especially -- it`s really
growing, I would think, among Republicans and some independents for
military action on the ground.

the president is not anxious to have ground troops in Iraq, obviously, and
certainly not in Syria.

I think if he believed we could do it with 15,000 troops, he might
take another look at it, but my guess is -- and I have not heard this from
him -- but my guess is he believes that`s optimistic. I certainly -- that
frankly, sounds optimistic to me, because the question is, is the one you

First of all, how -- do you -- are you able, with the Iraqi army,
which essentially collapsed, are you able, with 15,000 U.S. advisers, able
to recapture that territory, much less hold it?

Second, how are you dealing with the fact that ISIS is holding the
Sunni territory with the help of the Sunni tribal leaders and the Sunni
forces, essentially? And, essentially, right now, we`re supporting three
different groups who are all at war with each other, the Kurds and the
Shiites and Sunnis?

Do you send -- put advisers with all of them, so that they all fight
each other? I just -- I don`t understand how this works with just 15,000.
It seems to me that you inevitably escalate, and you end up with a whole
lot more than that.

MATTHEWS: Colonel Nagl, your response?

NAGL: First, they`re not all at war with each other.

Second, 15,000 American advisers is plenty. We currently have no
American advisers embedded inside Iraqi combat units. I trained American
advisers who embedded inside Iraqi and Afghan battalions and brigades
during the earlier phases of this war. Teams of a dozen or so American
advisers inside a battalion of 500 or so Iraqi and Kurdish troops will
multiply the combat effectiveness of those forces dramatically.

The Iraqi and Kurdish forces will be able to occupy and hold the
territory once it`s been cleared largely by American airpower, and then the
territory will be cleared and held by Iraqi and Kurdish troops. They can`t
do it on their own. They`re going to need the combat multipliers that
American combat advisers bring.

MATTHEWS: What do we bring -- Colonel, what do we bring to the fight?
Do we bring the fight to the fight? Do they have the fight in them to take
on ISIS? Or do we have to bring that sense of fight to them? You say that
they need us, but do they need us for materiel or for training? Or do they
really need to really want to win the war, which they don`t seem to be
willing to fight?

NAGL: They need us to provide the additional oomph required...

MATTHEWS: Well, oomph.

NAGL: ... to squeeze ISIS out of the territory it currently holds.

So, with American advisers, American airpower is infinitely more
effective. With American advisers, intelligence moves right down to the
front lines. With American advisers, their will to fight and their
knowledge that if they are wounded they will be helped and they will
receive help all increases dramatically.

MATTHEWS: Well, my question to Gene -- I think we agree on this -- if
we were fighting on the sides of the South Koreans, we wouldn`t have any
problems; if we were fighting on the side of the Turks in the Korean War, I
would have no problem.

I think we`re fighting on the side of an army that is Shia-led. The
Shia militia want to kill. I`m not sure the Shia -- the government of
Baghdad has the capability to raise a true army of Sunni people who are
willing to take back that territory.

ROBINSON: Well, I`m not sure either.

I wonder what happens to the Iranians, who are playing -- right now
playing a role in bolstering the Shia-dominated Iraqi forces, to the extent
they`re able to fight at all, to hold that part of Southern Iraq that
they`re able to hold? Do we just brush them aside? Do we fight alongside
the Iranians? Or what -- or do we just sort of ignore their presence?


I have got to ask -- I have got to turn on you -- you`re a man at my
side there, Gene. I want to ask you the tough question on the left. And
this is the tough one. How long can our president survive in office
politically and have his credibility as leader and commander in chief when
we have these beheadings, these burnings alive, all on television? To me,
it shames us. How long can he put up with it without taking aggressive
action against the enemy?

ROBINSON: Well, look, he`s president. He doesn`t have to face the
voters again.

Obviously, there are other political considerations, and it does
weaken him and stretch his credibility if -- as this stuff continues. I
think the president would love, for example, to be able to take out Jihadi
John with a drone and be able to say, you know, we got that guy, and to
present a couple of high-profile successes from the current campaign to
illustrate why there`s perhaps no need to escalate the battle.


ROBINSON: I just tend to feel, you know, without prejudging the
issue, but I tend to feel that if you`re in for a dime, you`re in for a
whole lot more than a dime.

MATTHEWS: I think so too. We`re in for a -- this fight has just
begun, this argument.

Thank you much, Colonel Nagl, for joining me. This is a good argument
for America right now.

And thank you, Gene Robinson, my friend.

Up next: Donald Trump is once again making noise about running for
president. Why is anyone taking this talk seriously? We`re going to get
to that, because I think he has a credibility problem, not at a business
tycoon -- that`s done -- but as a political candidate. I don`t see it. I
have never seen it, I think.

Anyway, this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Donald Trump is saying again that he`s more serious than ever about
running for president. According to "The Washington Post," Trump has
delayed negotiations on the next season of the "Celebrity Apprentice" and
is staffing up in key primary states. He met with Republican National
Committee chair Reince Priebus on Monday of this weekend to discuss his
potential 2016 presidential campaign.

Well, this is at least the fourth time that Donald Trump has toyed
publicly with the idea of running for president. Trump first floated the
idea in several newspapers back in 1987. He didn`t run that time, of
course, but he was asked about it after Bush won that nomination, the first


QUESTION: You took out full-page ads in "The New York Times" to talk
about your foreign policy. Some people would say...

very strongly. I do feel very strongly about the country. I love the
country. But I think you`re going to have probably George Bush as your
next president.

QUESTION: Well, I wasn`t talking about this year, Mr. Trump, but you
have said that, if you ran for president, you would win.

TRUMP: I think I would have a very good chance. I mean, I like to
win. When I do something, I like to win.


MATTHEWS: Well, then again in 1999, Donald Trump talked openly about
running for president in the 2000 year election.


QUESTION: Everyone who runs for public office has to be able to look
into the camera and tell people why they should vote for him.

TRUMP: Well, I will just look at you. I don`t have to look at a
camera. I will look at you. I will look you right in the eyes and I will
just say that I would be a great president, if I decide to do it. I know
how things should run.

And this country has not run properly. And if I were president, this
country would indeed run properly.


MATTHEWS: And four years ago, Donald Trump teased the country with
the prospect of another run, using President Obama`s birth certificate as
his main issue.


TRUMP: It`s hard to believe that Obama became the president of the
United States, not because of race, not because of color, not because of
anything, but because of all of the things that we don`t know about him.

Why did he spend millions of dollars trying to get out of the birth
certificate issue?


MATTHEWS: Well, this is beginning to sound like Groundhog Day. I
think I`m actually hearing Sonny and Cher singing, "I Got You, Babe" again.

Anyway, I`m joined right now by MSNBC political analyst Ron Reagan.

There`s that clock radio again in the morning, that Donald Trump is
running for president.

I don`t know why he does it, except that we`re talking about him, and
he likes that. Ron, your theory?

RON REAGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Donald Trump will be a strangely
coiffed comedy grenade lobbed right into the middle of the Republican
primary if he actually decides to get in.

Listen, this guy has got absolutely no policy credentials whatsoever.
He seems to be motivated mostly by self-interest. And he appears to say
anything that pops into his head. I promise you, I promise you that the
Republican Party stalwarts right now, the people who are really running
real campaigns, they are not happy about this.

This is going to turn a three-ring circus into a freak show.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me show you something along those lines. When it
comes to policy you mentioned there, Donald Trump has taken some
unconventional positions over the years.

For instance, in 1987, he said the United States should simply take
over Iran`s oil. Let`s watch.


TRUMP: Iran has taken advantage of this country for years. Iran is
in big trouble in terms of the military. We ought to go in the next time
they fire so much as a bullet at one of our ships. We ought to go in and
take over their oil. I have no doubt about it.

Other people would say, oh, Donald, that might start a war. We are
going to have a war through weakness. You go in, you take over -- you take
over the oil. Then let them have the rest of their country. We just want
the oil.


MATTHEWS: You know, compared to him, Chris Christie sounds like

I don`t know, but I don`t think it -- it really works. I mean, how do
you exactly do this? You go in there, kill a bunch of Iranians, take over
the oil. They shoot at a bunch of us. We kill some more people, and we
end up giving the oil back.



MATTHEWS: I mean, what kind of game are we talking about here?

REAGAN: Well, and game is the right word here.

I mean, does anybody seriously think that Donald Trump is serious
about running for president, that he would actually want to be president?
He likes the attention. As you said, this is a good way to attract
attention to yourself. Maybe he gets a little more money for his
television show this way, because he can be the former presidential
candidate Donald Trump.



REAGAN: I will make a prediction, though, for you. And I don`t
really get into predictions much, but this one, I will go way out on a
limb. Donald Trump will never, ever be president of the United States.


I have got a guy to back up that prediction. Trump himself did once
say he would probably never run.


MATTHEWS: It was here in HARDBALL back in 2003. Here he is, the guy
to predict.


MATTHEWS: Well, here`s what you said: "I continue to be interested in
the political process, and cannot rule out a possible candidacy in 2004."

That was you February 2000.

TRUMP: Oh, well, that was a long time ago, no, because I hadn`t heard
that one a long time. No, I never did.

MATTHEWS: Well, you heard it here, Donald.


TRUMP: I never did run and I probably never will run.


MATTHEWS: Well, that`s it, isn`t it? "I never will run."

Thank you, Donald, for truth. We had to go back to the tapes for
that, but we found it.


MATTHEWS: Ron Reagan, thank you. I think you`re right on that bet.

REAGAN: You bet.

MATTHEWS: Up next: From one circus to another, the conservative CPAC
conference is under way, and it`s a contest apparently to show who hates
President Obama and Hillary Clinton the mostest.

You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.


newsroom for you.

The Judiciary Committee has voted to confirm Loretta Lynch, President
Obama`s choice to replace Eric Holder as attorney general. A full Senate
vote on her confirmation is expected in the next two weeks.

Three deaths are being blamed on the winter storm system that began
punishing Mississippi on Tuesday.

And a judge has overturned Adrian Peterson`s suspension. The Vikings
running back was suspended by the NFL in November after pleading no contest
in a child abuse case. The league plans to appeal that ruling -- now back

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Well, today was the first day of the annual Conservative Political
Action Conference in Washington. It`s called CPAC. Kicking off the event
were a few Republican presidential hopefuls who took their turns bashing
President Obama and his potential successor, Hillary Clinton.


SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Hillary Clinton embodies the corruption of
Washington. Obamacare is a train wreck.


CRUZ: And that`s actually not fair to train wrecks.


DR. BEN CARSON, CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: I started to talk about all
the failures of the current administration, but I figured that was too
depressing. And that`s probably why they`re ready for Hillary, too.

indeed wants to drive the whole world back to the Middle Ages, but the rest
of us moved on about 800 years ago.


FIORINA: Like Mrs. Clinton, I too have traveled the globe. Unlike
Mrs. Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.


MATTHEWS: Sarcasm wins the day down there.

For more on the heat from CPAC, let`s bring in the roundtable: Al
Cardenas is the former chair of the American Conservative Union which runs
this thing, Jonathan Capehart is an opinion writer for "The Washington
Post", and Mercedes Schlapp is a former spokesperson for President George
W. Bush.

Let me ask you about the mood down there. First of all, Al, thanks
for joining us.

Is the mood that nasty, or am I just imagining that everybody knows
that if you want to score a 10 down there, whack the president, and on the
way by, whack Hillary?

it`s part of the show, but the main purpose is to train, give the tools and
the toolbox to young activists and older activists to be there for the 2016
challenge, to learn something. And the only place in the world in the
country really that you can watch wannabe for 2016 back to back to back and
make your own choices.

But, Chris, the ultimate goal in my opinion, as you watch this people
is, is this candidate a statesman or crowd pleaser? And number two, has he
given me or she, a clear path to where America needs to be or should be and
be all it can be? And so, those are the two goals that I always had as a
youngster when I went to CPAC.

MATTHEWS: You`re making my point, Al, because all these people come
in with the door prizes. They come in with these little snapper jokes
about Hillary thinking that travel is work, and somebody else comparing it
as a train wreck, saying he`s worse than a train wreck. This is all
prepared material, and all it is, is applause lines to snap at the
president and the possibly future Democratic nominee. It`s a snapper
stuff. It`s all prepared ahead, cooked ahead and brought in to excite the
kids out there.

CARDENAS: Well, you know, there`s a time for everything. And America

MATTHEWS: What is this a time for?


CARDENAS: -- are great.

Well, look, the time is for practical solution, for problem-solving,
for heading America in the right direction. And politics, after all, is
all about the art of the possible. That`s what I love to see at the end of
the program.

MATTHEWS: I`m with you. Mercedes, do you think that`s what they`re
going to do at CPAC, cook up solution for America`s problems or just
hatchet jobs on the Dems?

I think it`s both. I think, first of all, what this is doing is rallying
the base. This is the rally cry. This is the fact for conservatives they
are tired of the six years of Obama presidency. They don`t want to have a
follow-up with a Hillary presidency.

So, what do you do? You train your activists, you get them motivated,
and you basically have this parade of different candidates that are coming
out and, yes, they`re going to be given the one-liners.

But guess what, Chris? The media is covering the one-liners. It`s
how they`re best rallying the base. And they are talking about policy
solutions. I mean, they have panels on a bunch of very different topics.
It`s also trying to educate and prepare the conservative base for what`s
coming up in the next 21 months before the 2016 election.

MATTHEWS: Well, you could have problems, Al and Mercedes, because I
believe Chelsea Clinton will be well over 35 by the year 2024. So, this
maybe the worst thought --

SCHLAPP: Another Clinton? Come on.

MATTHEWS: This may be your worst nightmare.

Anyway, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is surging in the polls
lately very impressively, also aimed his fire today at President Obama and
Hillary Clinton. Here he is, the governor of Wisconsin.


GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: We have a president, a president
who drawing lines in the sand and fails to act, a president who calls ISIS
the jayvee club, who calls Yemen a success, and who calls Iran a country we
can do business with, and to add insult to injury, who`s former secretary
of state actually gave a reset button to the Russians, a reset button! We
need a leader in America who stands up and realizes that radical Islamic
terrorism is the threat to our way of life and to all freedom-loving people
around the world.



MATTHEWS: Well, John, he hit all the buttons there, radical Islamic,
it can`t just been terrorism. I mean, every point, I mean, he knows his

were a pinball machine, he hit all the bumpers and flippers.


CAPEHART: You know, that Scott Walker was in tone and in his
substance. I don`t agree with anything he just said, but I have to tell
you, that he struck me as rather impressive there.

It`s a pity, though, that he can`t be that impressive when he`s not
speaking from his stump speech, when he`s asked a question about evolution,
when he asked a question about the president and his religion. When he`s
asked questions that, you know, are off the cuff and contemporaneous, he
can`t -- he can`t seem to perform. But if he stays in venues like this, no
wonder he`s high in the polls against his likely challengers.

MATTHEWS: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sat down for a question
and answer period, than what he wanted with Laura Ingraham. And Christie
told Ingraham that Jeb Bush, the perceived front runner going into this
thing, is the choice of the elites in the GOP. Not a nice thing to say.


LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: A lot of the fancy political
consultants and a lot of the media types covering this today, they
basically think this is Jeb Bush`s race to lose.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: If the elites in Washington who
make backroom deals decide who the president is going to be, then he`s
definitely the front-runner.


MATTHEWS: Al, it seems like your party has taste for the populism,
going against the rich people in New York and Washington, you know?
They`re the bad guys now. Is that the spirit?

CARDENAS: Well, you know, as I get older, I get a little less patient
with whining and cynicism, to be truthful.

I`ll tell you this, I was with Jeb Bush when he visited the sugar
mills in Florida, a big industry, and when he demanded of those owners that
there`d be better housing and conditions for those farm workers. I was
with Jeb Bush when he fought for the underserved and unrepresented in
seeking immigration policies that were compassionate with people. I was
with Jeb Bush one night when we walked past -- and frankly I walked past a
homeless man and he stopped to see how he was doing.


CARDENAS: I don`t think -- I don`t think comments of that nature
about anybody. I wouldn`t say anything about Chris Christie like that or
anyone else.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question, Al, from your heart, is Jeb Bush
conservative enough to be the Republican nominee in 2016?

CARDENAS: You know, Chris, the media in 2000 decided that they wanted
to cover intensely the differences between the Bush brothers. You recall


CARDENAS: And now, the whole coverage is about how similar they are.
Well, they are all different, as all siblings in every family are

So, he has a lot of time, fortunately, to tell the American people
what he`s all about. He was one of the most conservative governors the
country had when he stepped down in 2006. He -- he received plaudits from
all the conservative activists who are having a little bit of a memory

But I`ve got their quotes, and I`ve got their comments about what a
great conservative he was.

MATTHEWS: Well, to make your point, Al, I think he`s Hillary people`s
worst nightmare if he runs. Anyway -- because if he wins the nomination,
the middle is in play.

Anyway, thank you.

SCHLAPP: That`s right.

MATTHEWS: The roundtable is staying with us.

And up next, is this headline in today`s "Washington Post" going to
cause problems for Hillary Clinton, foreign governments gave millions to
her foundation while Clinton was at the State Department.

This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Here`s an update on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu`s trip to Washington next week. Netanyahu will meet with the
Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate after his address to
Congress on Tuesday. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced
the meeting today.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu refused an invitation to meet with Senate
Democrats, saying it would look partisan. Netanyahu, of course, was
invited to address Congress, just two weeks before his own election by John
Boehner. And the White House wasn`t notified at that time.

We`ll be right back after this.


MATTHEWS: We`re back.

A conflict of interest can be a dangerous thing in politics,
especially if it sticks to your party`s future nominee for president.
Today`s big story in the front page of "The Washington Post" places serious
scrutiny on the money behind Hillary Clinton`s powerful group, the Clinton
Foundation. They report, quote, "The Clinton Foundation accepted millions
of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton`s
tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, including one donation that violated its
ethics agreement with the Obama administration."

Republican presidential hopefuls Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz ripped
into the story today when speaking to the conservatives at the CPAC


FIORINA: Mrs. Clinton, please name an accomplishment. And in the
meantime, in the meantime, please accept and explain why we should accept
that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton
Foundation from foreign governments do not represent a conflict of


SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: We could have had Hillary here. But we
could not find a foreign nation to foot the bill.


MATTHEWS: Well, he said it with a smirk but it still has power.

Back at the roundtable, Al, Jonathan and Mercedes.

Mercedes, are you guys going to jump on this?

SCHLAPP: Well, absolutely, I mean, this is just one of those episodes
where we`re seeing the true Clinton come out which is pay-for-play. This
is too close for Secretary Clinton to be involved in this foundation,
accept money from foreign government, knowing at some point that some of
the governments were lobbying her during the time that she was secretary of

So, this is absolutely a very -- it`s a sticky situation, I believe,
for the Clintons. And I think Republicans can justify -- you know, can
come out and justify saying this loophole they have with the foreign
government and Hillary Clinton and that relationship is just -- it can be
very problematic for them.

MATTHEWS: Jonathan, how do you deal with this? How do you deal with
it on the editorial page?

CAPEHART: Well, I mean, these are legitimate questions. Today`s
story raises legitimate questions. The key here will be how Secretary
Clinton and the Clinton Foundation responds as more and more of these
questions come up.

I would like to point out, though, that when our paper, the post, went
to the Clinton Foundation and asked these things the foundation answered.
And the other thing is, we have to keep in mind that in the clip you just
read from the story, there was an agreement between the Obama
administration and the foundation about what it can and cannot do. And as
you read, only one of those donations was in violation of that agreement.

But still, it`s going to require Hillary Clinton and the foundation to
explain what that agreement is, what it entails, and what kind of influence
it had, if any.

I take issue with the word lobbying that Mercedes used, because as
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton is not lobbing for anything, or open to
lobbying for anything. She can`t write legislation. She didn`t have any
say over laws. But, you know, foreign governments, you know --

SCHLAPP: Well, let`s call it influence, Jonathan. I mean, it`s
influence. It`s meetings with the secretary -- you know, with the State

MATTHEWS: For the record, the State Department is sticking with
Hillary saying she is OK on this.

Anyway, thank you, Al Cardenas. Thank you, Jonathan Capehart. And
Mercedes Schlapp, thank you. Great conversation tonight.

We`ll be right back after this.


MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this killer who hides behind a
mask and celebrates his hatred of us.

It`s hard to face up to such a figure to accept that he stands on this
earth with us, openly and coldly slicing off our heads one at a time or in
groups. He lacks not an ounce of sympathy for us, of course, believe that
if nothing else. He cares not for our fears, or horrors or our final
humiliation, or, of course, the death that comes at the end.

In fact, he wants this moment, wants to be there, taking pleasure in
them, wants to know before, during, and after, that he has the power of
inflicting death, fearful, terrifying, total.

And he wants you, those of you watching these videos he sends out, to
know it, feel it, hate it, and know there is nothing you can do about it,
nothing to stop him. The Jihadi John, the headline writers have dubbed
him, but unlike Baghdad Bob, we called that guy who couldn`t and wouldn`t
defeat of Saddam`s armies, there`s nothing of mirth in this man, nor should
there be in a name thrown upon him.

Masked or not, he is the face of evil, and as long as he stands out
there, condemning, humiliating and ultimately executing people, he looms as
a specter of evil that I don`t think can be endured without shaming
ourselves. There needs to be a reckoning with this evil. The challenge to
President Barack Obama which he must now know, as anyone else knows, is to
find a way to bring it.

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.>