Subject: FW: TRANSCRIPT: Reid on the Supreme Court and Trump
From: "Walker, Eric" <[email-masked]>
To: Comm_D <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:54:07 -0700

Solid messaging here

From: REIDPRESS-ADAM [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Orthman, Kristen (Reid)
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:49 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: TRANSCRIPT: Reid on the Supreme Court and Trump

Below is a transcript from Senator Reid's press call today.

TRANSCRIPT: Harry Reid Press Call on Supreme Court and Trump 5.5.16

HMR: Thank you very much. I hope everyone can hear me. I'm - as we say - home alone in Las Vegas. If you can't hear me, let me know. I think it's OK. I'm on my cell phone.

First of all, a couple times every day since yesterday - so today, for sure - I have to remind myself that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. It hasn't sunk in yet with me. But it's the truth. That's reality. Republicans want a - obviously, because that's who they nominated - a anti-woman, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant billionaire who inherited his wealth and rigs the system by - as we know from his university - scamming everyday Americans.

He's the embodiment of everything Americans hate about a system that's rigged for the top 1 percent. He's the definition of a man who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. What's worse, he uses his wealth to rip people off and is now sowing hatred and division every place he steps. By nominating Trump, I guess it's the natural evolution for a party that spent eight years defining itself on entirely what it's against: anti-immigrant, anti-woman - I repeat - anti-Obama, anti-working people. So I've seen that up real close for seven and-a-half years.

The only thing Republicans have been for: cutting taxes and not spending anything to help the middle class. They don't do anything to help low-wage people with minimum wage, they bury people in debt when they're trying to get an education. They have totally ignored - because it doesn't exist in their mind - climate change. We see Miami Beach being swallowed up with water.

It wasn't long ago, and I was there, when Republicans used to engage in thoughtful policy. But McConnell's ordered the Republicans to stop engaging in any policy proposed by Obama and Democrats. It's not coming from me. There have been many, many writings of some of you about this. Following McConnell's orders to abandon the major policy changes facing America, the Republican Party has become a hollowed out shell of its former self. And it's ripe for Trump's takeover. I gave a speech, as some of you remember, about a month ago on this very subject.

So now, Trump is the nominee. But he's the nominee the leaders of the Republican Party deserve. The Republican Party is Trump's party. There is no better example of that than blocking the Supreme Court nominee. Right in lock-step with Trump. As Grassley said yesterday, he's looking forward to Trump nominating someone else rather than this "ultra-left-winger." I'm paraphrasing that last bit. (inaudible) Merrick Garland.

I guess they want all these anti-things: women, Hispanics, all the things they're against - to be the standard-bearer. They've made that decision and part of it is changing the balance of the Supreme Court for the next generation. Republicans obviously trust the judgement of a man who defends rape, calls women dogs and pigs and spews hatred toward immigrants and mocked our veterans. We kind of let it slide by, but to say that John McCain is not a hero? I can't imagine that, but that's what he said. And got away with it. So it's a sad day for Republicans when they decide to bow to Trump. They want him to shape the Supreme Court for a generation.

That's where we are. And so for anyone who has been paying attention to what Republicans have been doing for the past eight years, they shouldn't be shocked. That's where we are. So I'd be happy - if it's OK with everybody - to take some questions. I don't know how you do it - press, usually you press star and I don't know what else.

Reporter: Thanks Senator Reid for taking the question. As you know, Donald Trump is about to build a border wall at the U.S Mexican border to address the drug epidemic in the United States particularly heroin. And I know you're working on the opioid legislation right now, trying to get that though. Do you think a border wall at the US Mexican border, if a U.S would actually help clout the drug epidemic and stop drugs from getting into the United States over the border?

HMR: We've been through this debate for many, many years. Um, immigration from Mexico is down, it's not up its down. In fact, it's at the lowest level it's been for a long time. So, we have built walls and I thought it's wrong, I've opposed them every time but we have hundreds and hundreds of miles of walls already. And you know it's very trite but you know any wall you build, there's a ladder tall enough to get over that wall. So, that's foolishness. And to think that this man gets away with saying we're going to build a wall and Mexico's going to pay for it, I'm not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. We have already - we have drones going over the border now, we have helicopters, we have fancy electronics and it's done quite well. The people who are so anti-immigration are fixed on something that doesn't exist anymore. So, I would hope that we would focus on thigs that are important for example we do have a problem and have to work on it with these children being driven out of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras because the most violent crime in the world is in those three countries.  And we're doing - we've made a lot of progress in being able to stop some of that but we have a long ways to go. And the other question was you asked me about the wall and I'm sorry Nick what was the other part of your question?

Reporter: The other part of the question was if that could stop the drugs from getting into the United States considering that you're working on the opioid legislation right now and there's a heroin epidemic in states like New Hampshire?

HMR: Heroin is very cheap, cheapest it's been in decades and we believe - Democrats believe that this has to be addressed and you know we don't know and I don't want to jump the gun but it appears that even the great Prince was involved with opioid abuse and that's such a shame people are dying as we speak during this call which will take about a half hour there will be around 15 people around America die as a result of the overuse of opioids and we have tried in this Trump driven Republican Senate to do something about that, but we need are some dollars to help this. We passed a bill-a lot of fanfare on the bill, had a great name, but we didn't fund it. Then the Republicans said, well, we can use some of the money from something we did before. There's a desperate need to do something for these people to get them off these opioids, to train doctors, support them to go through training on how they source these drugs. There's a lot of things we can do and we need minimal resources and Republicans are unwilling to do that.

Paul Kane: Hey Senator, thanks for doing the call. You in 2012 had a pretty leading role going after Mitt Romney on his business dealings. It sounds as if that is something you want to see the Clinton campaign take another look at. Is this something we should look for a lot more of from you talking about Donald Trump University and the business dealings?

HMR: I would certainly hope so and I also want to say this about Romney-my fight is over with Romney, but I do not want anyone to think that he is trying to put his income taxes-he'll do this one part of one [inaudible] well, I think that Donald Trump has to give us his whole -everything he's done and hasn't done. You know he's been involved in numerous-and I don't say that lightly-numerous losses. People who didn't pay and some who advocated [inaudible]. So he's going to have to fess up to whatever he's done in the business world including filing his income taxes. He keeps saying, well, I can't do that-I'm being audited. Well, it's just long diversion as he's pretty apt at doing.

Burgess Everett: Hey, Senator Reid. I wanted to ask you, what do you think about the amount of money the Republicans are spending and plan to keep spending to try and keep this Supreme Court seat vacant. Are you worried about being outspent on that issue for the rest of the year?

HMR: Burgess, if I were worried about being outspent I would be in some kind of mental hospital because we have been outspent the last 10 years everyday of our political life. With the Koch brothers - people think the Koch brothers just came to town, they've been doing this for decades or more. And they are the poster child for what's going on with spending in politics. I so appreciate being here and a wonderful book he wrote, it's on the best seller list of News York Times but I am terribly troubled about money in politics. Sure, I'm worried. They're spending - the Kochs have said you'll see they'll get involved. They're too too focused on destroying Democrats to not focus on Trump. They'll help him, but in addition to that, they've said, in just the Senate races alone, they - the Koch brothers -- are going to spend a $100 million dollars in the next 4, 5 months. Of course, I'm worried. But we've also come to learn that money's not been -- there's only so much TV you can saturate, you have all kinds of new media with all the internet work that can be done. We're getting back to some old fashioned stuff now as Democrats, doing some good direct mail. We're doing some really good door-to-door stuff. We're doing really well with registration for example Nevada, beating the Republicans on registration there, at least 2 to 1. So yes I am worried because anyone with common sense would be worried but it's nothing we haven't faced before.

Steve Sebelius: Senator Reid, I know that some of the Senators that were initially even reluctant to meet with Judge Garland have since done so. Has there been any other measureable progress or are we still stalemated the way we were when the nomination was originally announced?

HMR: My perspective's there progress being made. Cause all you need to do is look at what's happening around the country with Republicans who are trying to get re-elected and be elected. Take for example in New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte's numbers have dropped 14 points. Why? Because of the Supreme Court nomination. In Iowa, someone that was unbeatable, unbeatable: Chuck Grassley. His favorability has dropped 20 points. Now, it's still pretty good because he started pretty high but now he's going to be involved for the first time in 3 decades in a race for the Senate. And we have in Ohio, we have the incumbent Senator there, Portman, who can't get off the mat.  He's been whacked and whacked and whacked, every place he goes as a result of not allowing the vote on Merrick Garland so yeah I think there is progress being made - all you have to do is look at the Republicans' numbers which are dropping significantly and I think there's going to come a time in the near future when even they're going to say oh Mitch I've had enough of this. Let's go ahead with this hearing ad have a vote and get this over with.

Steve Sebelius: So you think there's a possibility that there will actually be a vote - they're not going to be able to sustain a - I guess you'd call this ignoring a filibuster of the nomination?

HMR: No, I don't think so. There's litigation now being filed by some groups saying that there not being any hearings, the President has the right to do it without all that because they've been given the chance to give the advice and consent. Whether the suit prevails or not, I don't know but at least they're getting pressure from everybody and I just think that there's going to come a time when they're going to say we've had enough - you know you're not running for re-election and my numbers dropped in a matter of weeks dropped 14 points.

Steven Dennis: Yes, Senator Reid, I'm wondering if you have more optimism not just about taking back the majority now but expanding the map of states that you think are gettable not just - you know you mentioned Iowa-but are there other states now that you think Democrats should be favored to win now with Trump at the top of the Republican ticket and also wondering if you have any thoughts on whether this will impact the next couple months of productivity in the Senate?

HMR: Well, it can't effect productivity in the Senate because we're doing nothing anyway. The only things we've been able to pass are things that they've filibustered back when I was Majority Leader - and I had to overcome hundreds of filibusters.  We've tried to be a very, very measured and stable and prod-and positive minority. Of the things that they've passed, the Energy bill and the number of things that they've been able to get through, because we're not filibustering - we want to succeed. So, the answer is we're producing very, very little and productivity can't really be hurt so if you're asking whether the kitchen's bare....if you take something out of the refrigerator - productivity doesn't -- isn't something we talk about in the Senate anymore. We've been in session fewer days than any time in the past 60 years - past 60 years.  So your next question was, your first question was races around the country. Well, let's look at them quickly. We're going to be competitive in Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, the Kochs, and others have spent millions and millions of dollars against Governor Strickland - we cannot find a poll that puts Portman ahead in spite of those millions and millions that have been spent against Strickland.  Katie McGinty - glad that primary's over - she's going to beat Toomey. We have a really interesting race and we're going to be competitive in Missouri with Kander, we're going to be more than competitive to replace Rubio in Florida with Murphy, Ayotte in big trouble with Governor Hassan, we have a good race now - basically tied - in Arizona and McCain's being quoted today saying I got a big burden with Trump being the nominee and having been a former nominee he knows about what he speaks so if I indicated no I'm not here predicting we're going to win Iowa but I guarantee it, guarantee you that this race is much different than it was a month ago. We're going to pick up 4-10 seats in the majority.

Steven Dennis: Do you have a number on what you expect now, maybe 7-8 seats?

HMR: No, I'm not going to get into that, I just think that these races will be competitive and based on these elections I know that we have to be - I'm not going to be here boasting what's going to happen  -- I just think that we're competitive and more.

Steven Dennis: Thanks.

Julia Richie KUNR: Hi, Senator. Just a few months ago you had circulated Gov. Brian Sandoval's name as a potential Supreme Court nominee. And just the other day, he and other moderate Republicans in the state said they would support Trump. I was wondering if you were surprised by Sandoval's support for Trump given he's considered to have a pretty bright future ahead politically and whether that will have an effect on down ticket races in the state of Nevada, the battle ground state?

HMR: I believe the Sandoval, in spite of the fact that he beat my son in that Governor's race, has done a great job. Especially with the terrible legislature you have will all those crazies he had there to deal with. He's done an admirable job. He supported Kasich, I can certainly understand how he could do that. He's not going to help anyone on the Republican ticket-he won't help anyone by having endorsed Trump. What he should've done-in Nevada we have a unique opportunity to vote for none of the above-that's what he should've done. But he didn't do that and I have trouble comprehending someone who I appointed to the federal [inaudible, 9:15], someone who I am [inaudible, 9:18]-I can't imagine how he could vote for Trump. But that's the decision he made and I'm sorry he's done that.

Richie: On the down ticket effect in Nevada particularly on state and local races-

HMR: Let me put it this way, endorsing Trump won't help him or any of the candidates who are up this time-the obvious answer is no. not only no, but hell no.

Richard Cowan: Hi Senator, thank you, I'm wondering in the conversations that you have with the Democrats all over the country whether you discern any sentiment of overconfidence about the prospects of defeating Trump and how he will help Democratic prospects and whether you worry that could be a problem for the party and could be taken by surprise?

HMR: I can speak from personal experience. You cannot be overconfident. As a young, 30 year old guy, I ran for the United States Senate in 197. We swept seats every place and I was running against someone that was-I should've won-but I was young. I was overconfident. Anytime that the Republican Paul Laxalt, who of course a good man, every time he would throw a line out there I would grab it. Make a long story short, I was overconfident and I got beat by 524 votes for the United States Senate. I've never ever forgotten that. I know how important it is not to be overconfident. And to be honest with you, in 1988 I was a little over confident with my race with John Ensign which I wound up winning by 428 votes. So I know over confidence. And am I concerned about it? Of course. I think that race could be a debacle for the Republicans, but I am not taking it for granted. I'm not going to be over confident. That's why I do everything I can. I make phone calls, visiting with people, doing everything I can to make sure we take back the majority. I wish I was running again. I'm not because of my injury, but that doesn't matter. The thing is I want to leave the Senate with the majority. And I'm doing everything I can. And one of the things I've already talked to my caucus about: you cannot be overconfident.

Cowan: And if I could just follow up, in running, how do you propose the democrats counterpunch-you've talked about the need for him to reveal his tax forms and talking about his business dealings. What do Democrats do to best get at Trump?

HMR: Well, first of all, Richard, I'm going to-I've outlined some of the obvious things that are wrong, but I'm you know meeting with John Tester, [inaudible], Schumer is inside the political operation, but I'm not going to specify here today I think I've done enough. We have plans in every place in the country to maximize our profits and to maximize their negatives.

WSJ: Thank you

HMR: I'm going to take one more question I think 8 or 10 questions is enough

WSJ: When would the last date be for it to be plausible for it to actually be hearings or a vote for him how much longer will the clock tick to leave that possibility out there?

HMR: That could be done in a matter of a week-5 working days. They could schedule the hearing and have a vote. That would be no sweat. They could do that quite easily.
WSJ: So you mean as late as October even?

HMR: That's for sure, yes. Even after October, they could still do it. Remember they're still going to have majority-as sad as it is for me to say that-they're going to have the majority from November to the first of next year

WSJ: And have you gotten any further feelers from the Republicans on the possibility of a lame duck session confirmation vote for Garland?

HMR: Well, there are a number of Senators-Lindsey Graham among the Republicans-who doesn't want a lame duck, because, I'm using his words, last time we did that, Harry Reid ate our lunch. We did extremely well in the last lame duck and there are Republicans that are afraid of lame duck. We should have one, I certainly think we will have one. With the election turning out the way it's going to, I don't think they can withstand not having one.

WSJ: But have any Republicans sort of hinted at you that that's when they could foresee a Garland-I know that's a-

HMR: A number of them have said publicly and privately that maybe we should wait til the lame duck and my response to that, I say if you're going to do it then, do it now. Get it over with. Because as I've already mentioned on this call, every day that goes by, is a day that is hurtful to them. So this is a losing issue for them. Obama went to great-he did a tremendous amount of work to come up with a consensus nominee. As you know, there are groups around the country who say he should've picked someone else, but that's who we got. That person is consensus as has been indicated by Orrin Hatch and many others. So I think we could get that done now, in October, in November, December. They could get that done. I've had a number of private conversations with Republican Senators looking for a way out of this
Okay. Thank you everybody for your time.

Kristen Orthman
Communications Director
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
desk: 202.224.0509 | cell: 202.557.9174
twitter: @KristenOrthman

________________________________

To unsubscribe from the REIDPRESS-ADAM list, click the following link:
&*TICKET_URL(REIDPRESS-ADAM,SIGNOFF);