The Beat with Ari Melber, Transcript 8/1/17 Still no White House guidance on Transgender Policy

Rod Wheeler, Douglas Wigdor, Joel Benenson, Steve Schmidt, Mark Jacobson, Daniel Hoffman

Date: August 1, 2017
Guest: Rod Wheeler, Douglas Wigdor, Joel Benenson, Steve Schmidt, Mark
Jacobson, Daniel Hoffman

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST, “MTP DAILY”: This Robert Kennedy would join John
Kennedy in the US Senate. No, not this former senator John Kennedy. This
John Kennedy, the Republican senator from Louisiana. And guess what,
again, no relation to any of the Kennedies that have been mentioned.

That`s all for tonight. THE BEAT with Ari Melber starts right now. Ari, I
hope at some point we will put out a programming note to help people
identify all the various Kennedies.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST, THE BEAT: It`s a lot of Kennedies and names matter
in politics, Chuck, as you well know. Have a good night.

TODD: Take it easy, Ari.

MELBER: Appreciate it. Donald Trump Jr.`s Russia meeting back in the news
tonight for one reason. His father insisted on getting involved.

Donald Trump Jr. hired a criminal defense attorney like many officials
under scrutiny in the Russia inquiry, but these new reports are revealing
that when he faced the biggest legal test for his contacts with Russians
offering election help, it was President Donald Trump who insisted on being
criminal defense attorney in chief.

The White House confirming today President Trump did have something to do
with crafting that statement on his son`s secret meeting with Russians.

“The Washington Post” reporting that the president personally dictated it.
Lawmakers on both sides now demanding answers and the White House`s answer
so far is that the president`s past denials either weren`t totally true or
weren`t the whole story because the president did weigh-in like “any father


Don Jr. issued is true. There`s no inaccuracy in the statement. He
certainly didn`t dictate, but he - like I said, he weighed in, offered
suggestion like any father would do.

The president didn`t have knowledge of this story. The White House didn`t
have any involvement in the story.


But multiple sources are telling “The Washington Post” in that story that
he did dictate. Trump personally dictated statement, in which Trump Jr.
said that he and the Russian lawyer had primarily discussed a program about
the adoption of Russian children when they met in June 2016.

And the president`s lawyer whose last statement on all this is undermined
by the White House today, offered this rebuttal, “apart from being of no
consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate and not

Let`s deal with this. There is plenty of debate over the exact accuracy of
these reports and President Trump is certainly entitled to explain why he
thought it was constructive to guide the description of a meeting that he
did not attend and that the White House claims he knows almost nothing

But his lawyers` new claim today that this is not pertinent is just silly.
The White House is doing damage control once again because the meeting with
the Russians, promising election help, is not only pertinent, it is the
possible element of a crime.

Now, in a moment, we`re going to get into all of that with former Watergate
prosecutor and a former advisor to the Trump campaign. Stay with me,

But first, I want to speak with a major expert to break all this down.
Justin Levitt is an election law expert. He`s prosecuted civil rights
cases as deputy assistant attorney general for the United States Justice

Appreciate you being here. And my question to you first is, do prosecutors
care if someone recommends a potential witness offers misleading answers
like this, even if out-of-court.

very much care. It`s actually a separate federal crime to willingly
mislead a law enforcement agent or to willingly mislead others, so as to
delay information getting to a law enforcement agent.

Generally, when the FBI or when the Department of Justice or when other law
enforcement agents come calling, they want the truth and they want it

And so, yes, it`s not a good idea to dissemble when there`s a federal
investigation going on into some underlying conduct, people called into

What do you mean by dissemble? Well, the words of the statement that were
offered, whether with or without the president`s help, attempted to say
that the primary subject of meeting was adoption and that it had nothing to
do with the campaign issue.

We know since then it`s come out that - if adoption was discussed, it
certainly wasn`t the only item on the agenda and that the reason for the
meeting was in many ways to find out about a very live campaign issue.

And whether that`s technically a lie or not, what people will focus on is
whether this was meant to mislead those who were investigating further.

MELBER: Right. And as you point out, the purpose of the meeting was not
to discuss adoption.

If Donald Trump was doing what the White House says is what any father
would do, which is a debate that fathers across America can simply have
tonight, what is the purpose of coaching someone on something that you
proclaim you literally know nothing about?

LEVITT: Well, it`s been very clear that the president likes to manage and
likes to manage a lot of affairs down to very small details. Whether he is
the best manager in those circumstances is, I think, really open to

And his apparent attempt to influence what the public learned and what the
press learned could well have been an attempt to divert attention from the
real point of the meeting, the really important bit.

I also want to point out by the way that these reports that have come out
about President Trump`s involvement not only implicate President Trump, but
show that there are sources inside the White House who want very much not
to implicate themselves.

That is, there are people who are running scared on the other side of this,
and that`s important to remember as well.

MELBER: That`s a fascinating point that you raise here at the end, that
the leaks are coming from people in a position to know that “The Washington
Post” has verified, who are in the inner circle, some of whom may be even
current White House officials.

Justin Levitt, I appreciate your expertise and your precision. A very
welcome way to start off our broadcast.

I want to get right to what was promised. Nick Akerman, a former assistant
special Watergate prosecutor; Barry Bennett, co-founder of Avenue
Strategies, and you may recognize him as a former senior advisor to the
Trump campaign during many busy periods.

Barry, you look at this, is Donald Trump the president helping or hurting
his son?

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Well, I think he thought he was helping, but I don`t
think he helped.

Then again, where was the senior staff in the room saying, Mr. President,
you shouldn`t do this, let`s call the attorneys. That`s one thing I`m very
excited about. Gen. Kelly now being on the scene.

There`s been far too much of this, far too many people answering questions
they really didn`t know the answer to on the record, which was a mistake.
Far too many amateur mistakes. And I hope Gen. Kelly to fix that.

MELBER: Very interesting to hear you say that you don`t think it was
helpful because the White House line, as you know today, is that this was
still just the fatherly role.

I want to play for you because you know - go ahead, sorry.

BENNETT: I agree that it was the fatherly role and he was trying to be
helpful. But, I mean, again, we we`re still talking about this because we
still haven`t got all the facts out about this.

This is, what, day five or six of this story. This is not helpful.

MELBER: And, Barry, I want to play for Donald Trump himself on this
because there is this idea that we hear about staffing and then there`s the
idea of what does the commander-in-chief think is important.

And there was a very odd exchange in his “New York Times” interview where
he went back to the adoption issue. This new “Post” report puts it in a
different light. Take a listen.


We talked about adoption.


TRUMP: Russian adoption, yes. I always found that interesting because,
you know, he ended that years ago. And I actually talked about Russian
adoption with him, which is interesting, because that was part of the
conversation that Don had in that meeting.


MELBER: As you may recall, his defense of the meetings with Putin involve
looping in the very controversial Russia meeting, which at the time was
very hard to understand even for deep Trumpologists, like Maggie Haberman
at “The Times”.

Now, with this new report, Barry, walk us through your thinking, but it
looks like this is further indication that the president thinks the
adoption thing is some kind of get out of jail free card.

BENNETT: Well, I mean, what`s clear is this Russian woman, the lawyer,
assuming she`s a lawyer, I don`t really know, but her entire purpose in
life is to try to get this oligarch out of sanctions. And she uses Russian
adoption as a carrot to try to accomplish that.

Now, she hasn`t been successful. I mean, she told a bunch of fibs in order
to get a meeting, but the meeting was about trying to help this oligarch,
which is what she wanted and didn`t happen.


was nothing more than just part of Donald Trump orchestrating his plot to
obstruct justice.

You can`t look at this just in terms of the meeting - of what Donald Trump
Jr. statement was. You also have to look at it - you have to look at it in
terms of what also Jared Kushner said.

If you take both of those statements and put those together, you can see
that one person very surgically mapped out a story that took both of them
out of the soup.

And that is absolutely what happened here. Donald Jr. said, oh, it was
just about adoption and nothing happened afterwards. And then you`ve got
Kushner - Jared Kushner saying, oh, I came into the meeting late, so I
didn`t hear anything that was incriminating that was said. And, oh, by the
way, I left early, so I didn`t really know what was going on.

What you have here is somebody atop, it`s not the lawyers, it`s Donald
Trump, who is basically orchestrating this entire plot.

MELBER: I want to be clear on what you`re alleging and then I`m going to
go back to Barry for response. You`re saying - you`re alleging that this
type of public misleading was actually designed to ultimately interfere
with an ongoing proceeding?

ACKERMAN: Absolutely. Because all of these people have now appeared
before Senate committees, they`ve appeared before congressional committees.

One would expect that Mueller is going to ask them whether or not what they
said in their statement was true. And I guarantee you, they all will say
that the statement was true and they`ll go by that statement.

In fact, if you look at Jared Kushner`s statement that was a written
statement provided to the Senate committee, it pretty much parroted the
same thing that we knew all along, but all of it is very surgically
designed to obstruct this investigation and to keep both of these
individuals out of the soup, including Donald Trump.

MELBER: Barry?

BENNETT: On a scale of 1 to 10, that`s pretty bad crap crazy. I mean, he
knows the frame of mind of everybody involved, which is pretty amazing.

I don`t know if he`s using some kind of psychic friends network or how does
he gets that information. That`s just crazy. I mean, it`s not even worthy
of a discussion.

ACKERMAN: It is worth discussing because -

BENNETT: No, no, it`s not a discussion. It`s a crazy (INAUDIBLE).

ACKERMAN: Donald Trump specifically said that he got rid of Comey because
he wanted to stop the Russian investigation. He admitted to Lester Holt on
national TV. He also aired it to the Russian ambassador in the Oval

If ever there was corrupt intent to try and stop this investigation, you`ve
got it in spades here. You also have Donald Trump trying to force out his
attorney general because he wants to put in a puppet, so he can get rid of

What he knows is, by setting up these phony stories that he put together,
that he`s putting both of these individuals, both of his relatives at risk,
because ultimately he doesn`t know all the evidence. All of this evidence
is going to come out and it`s going contradict those statements, so time is
not on his side. And that is why Donald Trump is razor focused to try and
get rid of Mueller as quickly as possible.

MELBER: Barry, final thoughts from you. And you know Donald Trump. You
worked directly for him in the campaign. You have heard him speak publicly
about Russia in all of this, and that was part of the changes he said he
wanted to make at the FBI.

BENNETT: Listen, these people that are speculating that know the facts
that Mueller doesn`t know or they know what was in Donald Trump`s mind or
Donald Jr.`s mind, that`s just crazy.

I mean, you`re not helping your own cause here. You`re just being crazy.
You can`t do that. Please. Let`s stick to the facts. Speculation is
fine, but crazy summation is not.

MELBER: Barry Bennett and Nick Akerman, I appreciate you both talk with me
and talking to each other and we will stay on the facts. Appreciate it.

Still ahead, this explosive lawsuit makes a claim that the White House was
involved in a now-retracted and false Fox News story about a horrific
incident, the murder of a DNC staffer, and it includes claims that are
reverberating everywhere tonight.

The allegation, President Trump personally advance reviewed the Fox News
story. We have a live interview here in studio with the plaintiff and his
lawyer in this case on THE BEAT tonight. So, stay tuned.

And, first, we will break down Jared Kushner`s new off-the-record defense
about why the Trump campaign couldn`t even have possibly colluded with the
Russians. Steve Schmidt is also here for his debut on THE BEAT.

And later, big news about how key parts of the government may be ignoring
claims that Donald Trump says about what the government should do, where
else, on Twitter?

I`m Ari Melber and you`re watching THE BEAT on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.


MELBER: There`s a saying that generals tend to fight the last war,
applying old lessons instead of adapting to the next challenge. But in the
Trump White House, new challenges tend to be about the last war. Like the
president`s war with his own aides about Russia or his war with himself on
whether to tweet or not to tweet.

And if the Trump White House was hoping to get a reset with his chief of
staff, the president`s own actions and tweets have put Russia back on the
front burner. That`s the challenge that Chief of Staff Kelly faces now,
day two, with these new reports that Trump dictated his son`s misleading
depiction of a Russia meeting.

And signs of while Kelly did swiftly dispatch Trump`s mini-me Anthony
Scaramucci, dispatching the original Trump may be harder.

Associates of Kelly doubt he would approve the new Trump tweets about fake
news, among other things, nor do Kelly`s careful public remarks match the
Hail Mary that Jared Kushner just threw out on Russia, arguing the Trump
campaign could not have colluded with Russia because they couldn`t pull off
a sophisticated crime.

“Foreign Policy Magazine” detailing that Kushner told an audience of
interns the Trump team was too disorganized to collude with Russia. That`s
one reason not to do it.

Now, if you are keeping track, the White House defense on this has gone
from I didn`t do it to if I did it, it`s not a crime to now I couldn`t do
it because it was too hard.

Steve Schmidt served as a longtime Republican strategist, including
advising the 2008 McCain. Karine Jean-Pierre is the spokesperson and
senior advisor at MoveOn.Org. Welcome to you both.

Steve, walk us through this general, who he is, who Donald Trump is, and
whether the circle can be squared.

He is a remarkable public servant, a four-star Marine officer, spent his
career in the United States Marine Corps, whose motto is honor, courage,

He lost his son, killed in action. He gave one of the most remarkable
speeches that an American will have heard in the 21st century four days
after his son was killed in action at the American Legion.

And he offers a vision and a conception in this remarkable speech that`s so
opposite Trumpism.

And when you look at Gen. Kelly`s life, his virtues and the virtues that he
stands for, the character that he is, it is so oppositional to who Donald
Trump is and to what Trumpism stands for.

And as this comes into contact, this man`s character with Donald Trump`s
character, we see it today. President of the United States, as we find
out, dictates the statement, purposefully lying, assaulting truth -

MELBER: You think the president was lying in what he asked his son to say
about the meeting.

SCHMIDT: Clearly. The statement was designed purposefully and
premeditatedly to mislead the American people. It is not a truthful
statement. We know that.

And what we see is the non-stop lying in this White House. Here`s why it
matters. In a democracy, when truth is under assault, liberty is
threatened. Liberty requires truth. Freedom requires truth. Like we
require air and water.

And so, we`ve never seen a level of purposeful lying like we`ve seen in
this White House. And so, now, as we`re on this hour, as the details begin
to become clear on this Seth Rich issue, what happened?

Is it possible that the president of the United States was involved in the
planting of, in the dissemination and collusion with a news network, a fake
story to distract from this investigation that was purposefully,
premeditatedly devastating to a tragic death of a young man to his family
and his parents? Is that possible?

MELBER: Right. The allegation that you`re talking about, a slander built
on a murder, is what you`re talking about.

SCHMIDT: And so, Gen. Kelly`s chief mission, of course, is to clean up
this White House staff, which seems to function like the Jersey Shore cast
at its moments of peak idiocy.

But his real fundamental challenge here has to be to stop the lying because
it is a threat to the country and it is against everything he stands for.

MELBER: Let me bring in Karine. A, serious case made by Steve Schmidt
that there is a constitutional foundational issue with the repeat mendacity
coming out of the White House, and this being a claim made here by a
Republican, we should note.

B, Karine, an analogy to the Jersey Shore, except instead of GLT - gym,
laundry, tan - maybe it`s GLT - gym, laundry, tweet.

But your view of both those issues and the contrast to Gen. Kelly.

Look, I totally agree with Steve.

I think John Kelly has clearly a distinguished career. But he`s going to
have a hard time. Donald Trump is a 71-year-old man. He`s not going to
change. He wants to tweet, lie and spin his way out of political messes,
out of legal messes.

And it`s one thing when you`re trying to spin your second divorce to a New
York tabloid. It`s a whole different thing when you`re trying to run a
government, a federal government.

So, I think he`s going to have a tough time.

And let`s not forget, there was a long line of people before John Kelly who
have tried to change Donald Trump and failed. Look how many chiefs of
staff he`s had in just six months. Look how many campaign managers he had
during his campaign.

It is a tough job. And I just don`t think he`s going to be able to do it.

MELBER: And, Karine, you make a point, I think, that dovetails with what
Steve is saying, which is a lot of people removed are the communicators.

He may not be as interested in policy, so the undersecretary spots don`t
even get filled once, let alone filled, removed and refilled. The
communicators keep getting ousted.

Take a listen, Steve, for your response, to a Republican Congressman here
saying, one way to fix this problem is to fire the kids.


REP. BILL FLORES (R), TEXAS: I`m going out on a limb here, but I would say
I think it would be in the president`s best interest if he removed all of
his children from the White House, not only Donald Trump, but Ivanka and
Jared Kushner.


SCHMIDT: Of course. This is why we have nepotism laws. This isn`t


SCHMIDT: Look, it`s important to understand that we keep sight of normal.
It`s like being out on the ocean. And we`re moving past the point where
the land is visible. That land, for purposes of this metaphors, is what`s
normal in our politics.

The president`s daughter shouldn`t be sitting at a table with head of
states at the G20 Summit. It`s grotesquely inappropriate.

The president`s son-in-law, who is 34 years old, a capable young man, but
he`s in charge of Middle East peace, he`s in charge of the opioid epidemic
in the country because, why, he`s an expert in these things?

This America is the oldest constitutional republic in the world. It`s not
a family business. And Gen. Kelly, if he`s going to be successful, is
going to have to restore normalcy, which means the kids are out of there,
and they are out of there pretty soon.

MELBER: Karine, final thoughts.

JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. I just wanted to add there, look, Ivanka and Jared spun
this whole story on day one that they were going to be the moderating force
for Donald Trump, that they were going to help manage their father-in-law
and their father, but what it turns out to be is a big old farce.

They`ve become enablers, especially to his worst - Trump`s worst instincts.
Example, Comey firing. That was a Jared thing.

But the problem is that he`s never going to fire his family and it`s going
to be really tough for John Kelly. And I just don`t see that happening.
And until they stay there - as long as they stay there, it`s going to
continue to be dysfunctional.

MELBER: And, Karine, you put your finger on why the laws were passed in
the first place. It`s not because you shouldn`t love your family. It`s
because the Congress felt it was improbable to ask a president to choose
between country and family. So, if those interests collide, it was an
improbable situation.

Donald Trump found a loophole for that by avoiding cabinet appointments and
putting them in the White House. And now, we`re all living on that type of

Steve Schmidt, I want you to stick around. There is something else I want
to ask you about. Karine Jean-Pierre, thanks for joining THE BEAT. I hope
you`ll come back.

JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely. Thank you, Ari.

MELBER: A new lawsuit alleging “Fox News” concocting a false story and
that President Trump was personally involved. That`s the allegation. The
plaintiff is here for a cable news exclusive.

Stay with THE BEAT on MSNBC.


MELBER: A detective who worked on researching an explosive ” Fox News”
story is today taking the channel to court. Alleging they defamed him in a
deliberate effort to help Donald Trump deny Russia was behind the election

Now, all these at this point are just claims. They need to be proven. He
says he has evidence, including texts and voicemails.

But first, the context. DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered in July 2016.
Police say it was likely from a botched robbery.

In May, though, “Fox News” touted a supposed break in the case. What
you`re about to see is a story they have not proven, which fell apart after
airing and which “Fox” has partially retracted.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Another “Fox News” alert. A huge bombshell in the
murder of this DNC staffer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An investigator now says Seth Rich was in contact with
WikiLeaks before he was murdered.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, if that is true, and we don`t know yet, looks like
Russia didn`t give it to WikiLeaks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, it was Seth Rich perhaps.


MELBER: Perhaps. “Fox News” claiming maybe Russia didn`t do the hacking,
which would undermine the felony at the heart of Mueller`s investigation
and perhaps exonerate President Trump.

But they didn`t have evidence for that bizarre claim. And this lawsuit
drives another nail in that coffin because the investigator, who we`re
about to hear from, who worked on the case, says “Fox News” made up the few
false quotes they had for this story, alleging Wheeler`s reputation
destroyed by defendant`s decision to defame him.

And that`s not all. Wheeler also says the White House was in on all this
and he has the evidence to prove it. Wheeler saying a key volunteer “Fox”
investigator left him a voicemail saying, “we have the full attention of
the White House on this; tomorrow, let`s close this deal, whatever we`ve
got to do.”

And texting “Not to add any more pressure, but the president just read the
article. He wants the article out immediately. It`s now all up to you”

Wheeler argues that was true and the White House was involved in the
retracted story. But if this was not true, well, that would help the White
House but not Fox News if their volunteer investigator was lying while
teeing up this story or if the investor in all of this was lie, but that is
one side of the case. Fox is fighting this case today and denying all of
these allegations saying, “the accusation that published a
story to help detract from coverage of Russia collusion is erroneous. The
retraction of the story is still being investigated internally and we have
no evidence that Rod Wheeler was misquoted.” And the White House said this


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the president know about the story pre-publication
and did he have an influence on the way that the story was written?

knowledge of the story and it`s completely untrue that he or the White
House involvement in this story.


MELBER: I want to be clear with you as we proceed. There`s two sides to
this story. We hear at THE BEAT have invited the White House on this show
to elaborate an open invitation this week. Tonight we have another side of
this story. Rod Wheeler, the plaintiff in the case and Douglas Wigdor, Rod
Wheeler`s Attorney. Rod, what are you claiming and when did this entire
incident change for you because initially, you were voluntarily involved?

ROD WHEELER, FOX NEWS LAWSUIT PLAINTIFF: That`s right. Well, I was asked
to get involved in conducting an investigation, a murder investigation of
Seth Rich. And that`s why I got involved so I could try to find out who
killed this guy. During the course of my investigation, there was a lot of
things that came up. There was a lot of suspicious information that I was
learning as far as possible even the DNC being involved to some degree. I
don`t know. But what I decided to do was to you know, take all the
information I got and give it to Police Department like you should do in
any case and go from there. But half way through the investigation and
then up until the point in which this article was released by Fox, there
were these quotes in there from me supposedly saying that I knew for a fact
that Seth Rich, the deseeded had been in contact with WikiLeaks e-mailing
them e-mails. Well, that was not true.

MELBER: Let`s pause, let`s pause. Fox News reporting you as the source
linking the DNC staffer to this hacking. You`re saying at time that was

WHEELER: Right. The reporter from Fox News, Malia Zimmerman, she wrote
that story. I immediately challenged her and I said, Malia, that`s just
simply not true. You and I both know this isn`t true and she said, well,
her boss has told her to leave those quotes in there. And I say why would
you leave something in an article that you know is not true? And that`s
why we`re here today.

MELBER: Why do you think as you alleged they made quotes from you?

WHEELER: Well, I think - I know for a fact that Ed Butowsky who was the
individual that was funding my investigation, he had been in contact with
people from the White House and he was the one that was pushing this
Russian hacking narrative by the way I didn`t know a whole lot about
because I wasn`t yo know, trying to debunk a narrative or support a
narrative, I was trying to find the murderer. I do know that and Ed even
admitted himself. And then I think the bottom line with all of this Ari,
is that fact that the reporter, herself, from Fox News, she even admitted
that she lied and put those quotes in there. I mean, she admitted that but
at the same time to this day they have not retracted that. As a result of
those quotes and her story, it`s done damage my credibility and my

MELBER: Let`s look at Fox News when you did go on with Hannity.


WHEELER: There was a federal investigator that was involved on the inside
of the case, a person that`s very credible. He said he laid eyes on the
computer and he laid eyes on the case file. When you look at that with the
totality of everything else that I found in this case, it`s very consistent
for a person with my experience to begin to think, well perhaps there were
some e-mail communications between Seth and WikiLeaks.

MELBER: If you were so concerned at the time, why did you go on Fox News
and make that claim?

WHEELER: Well, I think that claim was true. Think about it. If this
investigator, this FBI investigator that was developed by the Fox News
person, if that person, what they are saying is true coupled with
everything else that I had been finding in my investigation then any
investigator would say to themselves well, maybe his death was a result of
something related to his job.

MELBER: So you`re saying - I just want to be clear - you`re saying at that
moment you were telling the truth because you were lying on misinformation.
So in your mind it -

WHEELER: Exactly.

MELBER: When did you change your mind?

WHEELER: Well, I never actually changed my mind. See, I never backtracked
anything because I actually never made those statements, those quotes in
the first place. The day after that story was released is immediately I
confirmed that reporter and I told her you need to take these things out of
article. She never did that.

DOUGLAS WIGDOR, ROD WEELER`S LAWYER: So, I mean, really, the difference
between what you just played and what was in the May 16th article is that
in the clip, he`s talking about a source that allegedly existed. We don`t
even know if the source existed. This is what Ed Butowsky and Malia
Zimmerman said. When they did the May 16th article, they attributed
everything to Rod having seen these e-mails. And he never sees the e-
mails. And as he said, both Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky both admitted
that these quotes weren`t right. In fact, Ed Butowsky said, you know what,
these are words that you never said but you`re going to win an award for
having said them -

MELBER: Right. I mean, the best - the best legal defamation point here is
whatever happened, we`re now at place where everyone including Fox News
said part of this was wrong. Then you have the other part of your
complaint which is this documentary evidence and text that the President of
the United States was personally involved in reviewing this story before it
was published and pushing it out. When did you learn about that and why do
you believe that to be the case?

WHEELER: Right. I learned about that from Ed Butowsky. Ed Butowsky, he
is the one that sent me an e-mail, which I you know, have shown. And I
mean, I saw the e-mails and have shown them and voice mails where he said
the President has reviewed the story. This is the story that the reporter
was going to release. This is before the story was released. This is what
he sent to me. The President has reviewed this story and wants it out

MELBER: Wow. So, hold on.

WHEELER: Now, this comes from Ed Butowsky.

MELBER: What did you think when you got that text?

WHEELER: Well, first of all, I`m thinking why would the President have to
review a story pertaining to a death - to a murder of a guy in D.C.? Why
would the President even be involved in this? But at that point, Ari, it
was obvious to me that they actually lured me into this investigation.
They meaning, this Fox News Reporter and Ed Butowsky to substantiate this
Russia Narrative thing or to debunk that when in fact they told me that I
was really getting involved just to solve a murder. All I want them to do
is correct the record.

MELBER: Right. Your - I mean, this is why this is a weird one but you
have some texts here that make it more than a theory. Your argument is
that they pulled you in to use you in part of this investigation and that
Fox News and the White House were advanced planning it. And I want to read
from one of the e-mails that you have in your complaint basically showing
the plan in advance. “One of the big conclusions that the Fox volunteer
here said, we need to draw from this is that the Russians did not hack our
computer systems and steal e-mails and there was no collusion like Trump
with the Russians.” Why is that important and what did you think then if
you learn that that was part of the goal not solving the murder?

WHEELER: Why would they have me then be investigating this thing as a
murder when in fact, their alternative motive was to debunk a Russian
hacking narrative which was you know, which was unfair to me because as a
result of that story, like I said, it killed my credibility. It made it
seem like I was backtracking on something. But if you think about it, I
never backtracked because I never said those quotes.

MELBER: And Douglas, I want to ask you a question with the time we have.


MELBER: The arguments just made will be tested in court for their veracity
based on whether they were lying to you, lying to the public and whether
that meets a defamation standard. You also though, in this complain have
these explosive allegations about the White House. You don`t need those to
win your case thought, do you? Why are they this there?

WIGDOR: We don`t need them but it`s the backdrop for why they defamed Rod.
And you know, it`s really interesting because you read the statement by
Fox. They say that our claims are erroneous but then they go on to say
that they`re still investigating it. So how can they conclude they`re
erroneous if they are still going through an investigation? You know,
we`re going to take discovery in this case. We`re going to see the e-mails
or texts or phone calls or visits to the White House between Ed Butowsky
and President Trump and other people in the White House and we`re going to
get even more information in this case. And what`s really amazing, last
point is that the general counsel of 21st Century Fox Gerson A. Zweifach
was in England trying to convince the regulators in England that they
should be able to purchase Sky and that they met the broadcasting standards
by implementing new policies the day before this article came out.

MELBER: Rod, final question. Is there anything you want to say to
President Trump who is named in your suit with regard to reviewing this
article and number two, anything you want to say to Mr. Rich`s family?

WHEELER: Well, you know, I`ve already expressed my apologies to the Rich
family that this thing even went in the direction that it did. And the
only thing I would say to the President and to the Democratic Party is to
butt out of police investigations and let the Police Department conduct
their own homicide investigations because I don`t think we would be here
today if the DNC would not have been involved to some degree with this
investigation with the D.C. Police Department.

MELBER: How was the DNC involved with the Police Department?

WHEELER: Well, you know, I said before on a Fox show that when - during my
investigation when I first reached out to the Police Department, Donna
Brazile was the one they contacted the Rich family wanting to know why I
was snooping around. Why would Donna Brazile even be involved in the
situation if this was just a street murder? So I do think the DNC needs to
butt out of this police investigation and Ed Butowsky and the Republican
Party as well. You know, I don`t know for a fact Ari, I know that we don`t
have much time. I don`t know for a fact that President Trump even knew
about all of these things going on, but if I was to base it off of what Ed
Butowsky said, then I would say, yes he did. I don`t know that for a fact
but I think politicians need to butt out of police work and let cops do
their jobs.

MELBER: Rod Wheeler, thank you for taking some time to explain your case
and Douglas Wigdor your attorney. I appreciate you both. We were going to
stay on this important story as we look at the angle regarding these
allegations regarding President Trump and new reports he might be hiring a
very senior Fox News Executive forced out during the Roger Ailes scandal.



WHEELER: Ed Butowsky, he is the one that sent me an e-mail, which I you
know, have shown. And I mean, I saw the e-mails and I have shown them and
voice mails where he said the President has reviewed the story. This is
the story that the reporter was going to release. This is before the story
was released. This is what he sent to me. The president has reviewed this
story and wants it out there.

First of all, I`m thinking, why would the President have to review a story
pertaining to a death - to a murder of a guy in D.C.? Why would the
President even be involved?


MELBER: That was Rod Wheeler moments ago on our show talking about his
suit against Fox News. Steve Schmidt and Joel Benenson here, from the left
and right. Joel, the significance of the allegation that the President was
reviewing Fox News articles about murdered DNC staffers in advance.

there`s a lot we have to learn about this Ari, but what`s remarkable is
that this is incredible that the President sitting in the White House would
engage in something like this. And what`s happened over the last six
months and the way this President and his administration has behaved makes
it completely plausible. And their pattern of continually denying and
dodging on the outrageous things they`ve done including the other day just
yesterday, whether the President been in fact massaged the statement from
Donald Trump Junior regarding his meeting with the Russian, the fact we`re
sitting here and debating this is critical is shocking and it`s dangerous
for our country.

MELBER: And Steve, I want to play you some sound from Sean Hannity who we
know Anthony Scaramucci was upset about leaks with Hannity and Bill Shine,
a former Fox Executive were meeting with President Trump. The Times
reporting today, he may hire Bill Shine. Here is Sean Hannity pushing this


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Also tonight, another massive breaking news
story. Explosive developments in the mysterious murder of former DNC
staffer, Seth Rich, that could completely shatter the narrative that in
fact WikiLeaks was working with the Russians or there was collusion between
the Trump campaign and the Russians.


MELBER: Steve?

STEVE SCHMIDT, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, if the allegations made the
lawsuit turn out to be sure it will - it will likely in my view be the
largest journalism scandal of our - of our generation involving the
President of the United States, the dissemination of propaganda, the
subordination of the editorial judgment of the news network, really
functioning like state TV taking dictation from the President of the United
States and not to mention to the family. And I just think about this
through prism of apparent the extraordinary cruelty towards the parents of
Mr. Rich just extraordinary and chilling to think about.

MELBER: Right. Because this was built on a young man`s murder, an
unsolved murder, we should mention. And Joel, I want to reiterate what we
said in our set up to this story in the last block. This is one side of
the case. We`ve invited the White House on and they have denied aspects of
this. As for Mr. Butowski, the figure sort of caught in between, I want to
read, he - reporting from NPR today says he never actually shared drafts of
the story with Trump or his aides and to explain the claim that he did, he
says he was joking. But nothing in the text - and I reviewed the entire
complaint today suggest any bonhomie or emojis or anything likely at, so
this is their best explanation after prep and it`s weak one I got to say.

BENENSON: And think about the fact that they`re not refuting the notion
that he was meeting with Sean Spicer in the White House that`s confirmed.
It is confirmed. Like those pieces of the puzzle fit together in way that
is not very good for Mr. Butowsky or the folks in the White House.

SCHMIDT: Look, what we - what we know is that every instance where a piece
of news like this has come forward the White House has prevaricated about
it. They have not been truthful. The story unravels. There`s certainly
no one has claimed to be you know, any type of master criminal there.
What`s interesting about the White House lies is there are little kid lies.
Like little kid with the cupcake all over his face, right? Hey, did you
eat the cup cake? No, (INAUDIBLE) icing all over them. Of course, he did.
The point is this unravels so quickly, so easily. And I - and we`re going
to get to the truth. What has been a constant every time the White House
lies about something, then a couple of days more information comes forward
that exposes the lie, invalidates the accusation.

MELBER: Steve Schmidt and Joel Benenson on a busy day. Thank you for
joining. I want to turn in to another important policy issue. There are
only eight days left now for President Trump to sign that Russia Sanctions
Bill. What is the weight? We turn now to Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley
of Oregon on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, I want to
ask you about Russia. If you have any comment on this other story, I`ll
give you an opportunity on that as well.

SEN. JEFF MERKEY (D) OREGON: Well, Ari, good to be with you and
congratulations on your new program.

MELBER: Thank you.

MERKLEY: I do think that we are looking at a situation where the President
doesn`t want to sign this legislation. He came into office wanting to get
rid of the sanctions. His team had conversations with the Russians about
getting rid of the sanctions. It`s been place where Democrats and
Republicans together have felt that that is absolutely, totally
unacceptable because of Crimea, because of Ukraine, because of the hacking
of our election.

MELBER: And then, you look at that in the backdrop of Jared Kushner`s new
comments made to Congressional interns, hardworking young people that I
know you interact with. And it`s all great to have those conversations but
he - I guess made some news saying quote, people thought we colluded but we
couldn`t even collude with our local offices. How do you view that from a
Russia investigative standpoint as a possible defense?

MERKLEY: Well, not very strong. I must say we`ve learned more and more.
I mean, when you had that meeting that included a fixer close to Putin, a
Russian attorney close to the Russian Secret Service, the son`s -
President`s son, son-in-law, the Head of his campaign, the President`s
campaign. When you had that collective group meetings specifically to
discuss how to sabotage Hillary Clinton`s campaign, you know that there
were conversations before that and conversations after that. We`re going
to learn a lot more. There`s nothing about the kind of the small amount of
defense put forward that are almost immediately found to be - to be false.

MELBER: And if the President does use the next week or so to sign the
sanctions bill, in your view, as a supporter of the policy, what message
are you sending as a Congress to Russia?

MERKLEY: Well, I can tell you that the President is sending the message
that he`s doing this very reluctantly if he signs it at the end. And
that`s not the message he should be sending. He should be sending the
message that we are - he is going to be a watch dog for America not a lap
dog for Putin, that the Russian interference in our campaign was completely
100 percent unacceptable. If it ever happens again in any form, there will
be significant retaliation, that certainly we stand firm behind our
position regarding the Crimea and Ukraine. That the message. We need the
President to stand up and be strong about Russia instead of being Putin`s
lap dog.

MELBER: Strong words. Senator Jeff Merkley, thanks you for your time

MERKLEY: You`re welcome. Thank you.

MELBER: A new story up next. The federal government finding a reason to
ignore orders from the President because they`re not orders. We will
explain, that`s next.


MELBER: If the President tweets a policy and the federal government
ignores it, did the tweet make a sound? President Trump making waves when
he purported to announce that transgender ban, many in Congress greeted the
Presidential statement as a new policy. But then the Pentagon announced
the military policy was not going to be changed by a tweet even a
Presidential tweet. “There will be no modifications to the current policy
until the President`s direction has been received by the Secretary of
Defense and so far the White House has not practiced what it tweeted. We
can tell you tonight, NBC`s Pentagon Reporter Courtney Kube, noting the
guidance has not yet materialized and the Pentagon`s approach here of
calling the President`s bluff may be spreading. Consider this other
announcement from the President, the dramatic guidance that might be
interpreted as either an order or as theater.


nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you`re protecting
their head? You know, the way you put your hand? Like don`t hit their
head and they`ve just killed somebody, don`t hit their head? I said you
can take the hand away, OK?


MELBER: You can take the hand away. But in response, the current DEA Head
said a memo to staff around the world saying DEA agents would not be
following that as guidance writing, “I write because I have an obligation
to speak out when something is wrong.” Joining me now is Mark Jacobson, a
former Senior Adviser to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter as well as Daniel
Hoffman, a former Chief of Station at the CIA. Mark, obviously the chain
of command is important. No one is suggesting defying lawful orders but
the Pentagon wants to be clear, I suppose here, about what is an order?

Absolutely. Ambiguity is not good when it comes to the military. And you
have a President who`s not only being unhelpful and unwise but has gone out
there saying that, well, you know, it`s okay to kill terrorists` families.
It`s OK to maybe abuse a prisoner in custody. And then said well, it`s a
joke. I`m not really committed to that idea. So I think General Dunford
is absolutely clear that he wants to make sure what the policy is. And
plus this would be difficult to implement and it`s not even clear if it`s
legal. So kudos to the Pentagon for checking the President and making sure
that the White House means what they say they mean.

MELBER: Daniel, are we witnessing sort of an improvisation of how agencies
respond to a different President and is that a good thing?

my experience of serving in the government for over 30 years, deploying
with U.S. military to war zones, serving in Embassies with other agencies
including State Department and FBI, that when the Secretary of Defense or
the Director of CIA or the President, the Ambassador, gave a speech, that
was considered Commander`s Intent and that was the approach that we were
going to take and it was the mission we were going to try to achieve and we
took those words very seriously.

MELBER: Meaning what? I don`t follow what you`re saying. Are you saying
then that this is a bad thing because we`re departing from that intent
tradition or you`re saying that this is a President who doesn`t live up to
that standard so this is a good way to deal with it?

HOFFMAN: Well, what I`m simply saying is that`s the experience that I`ve
had serving in the U.S. government. And that`s really what I think most
U.S. government employees are conditioned to expect which is a Commander`s
Statement of Intent from your superior whether all the way up to the
President. And it`s clear Commander`s Intent which we would follow and if
there`s something that`s questionable about it, then we would follow up
with some questions afterward to receive some clarifications before

MELBER: Sure. So Mr. Hoffman, should the military then begin implementing
the transgender ban as intent?

HOFFMAN: Well, I wouldn`t want to be so presumptuous with this as to speak
on behalf of the military but I would say that in my own experience, if I
had a question about the intent, then I would seek some clarification
before proceeding.

MELBER: Mark, I`m not trying to be presumptuous either and I understand
Mr. Hoffman is careful and we care a lot about civilian control. But it
seems to me, what we`re observing is a shift because of the nature of the
word choice of this particular President. So Mark, is it good - are we
basically seeing a new world order where you have to double check whether
things are in order because the President may want a new cycle instead of a

JACOBSON: Look, let me be clear. I mean, this was about politics as the
bad thing. The President shouldn`t do it again. Hopefully, General Kelly
will get him in the right place here. But words matter and I think this
issue of intent and order is very significant. For the military, there`s
an obligation as you stated earlier to follow a lawful order. But this
isn`t new. A very famously during Reagan administration, Secretary of the
Navy John Lehman had inserted into Reagan`s speech a call for a 600 ship
navy. This was something the (INAUDIBLE) had no intention of putting in
there. He was blindsided by it.

And so the Pentagon slow rolled and went back for clarification. So
there`s a political angle to this. My worry is not necessarily what
happened the other day, despite my disagreement with the President`s
policy. My worry is what if he does this on something like North Korea or
an attack or the need to give serious life and death orders? That`s my
concern. So the President needs to stop it now and go back to a normal
relationship with a direct chain down to the Pentagon.

MELBER: Understood. Mark Jacobson and Daniel Hoffman, appreciate both of
your expertise based on - expertise based on years of service. That is THE
BEAT today. We`ll see you tomorrow night 6:00 p.m. Eastern. You can
always find us on Facebook and Twitter @thebeatwithari and “HARDBALL”
starts now.



Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the