The Beat with Ari Melber, Transcript 8/28/17 The Arpaio pardon

Matt Schlapp, Catherine Rampell, Zerlina Maxwell

Date: August 28, 2017

Guest: Matt Schlapp, Catherine Rampell, Zerlina Maxwell

KATY TUR, MSNBC HOST, “MTP DAILY”: THE BEAT with Ari Melber starts right
now. Hi, Ari.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST, THE BEAT: Hi, Katy. Thank you very much. We have
breaking news right now.

Newly revealed emails show Donald Trump`s top lawyer directly ask the
Kremlin to help with a Trump business deal in Moscow and this was at the
height of Trump`s presidential campaign.

This is a potential turning point in the Russia inquiry and we`ll show why
right now. Number one, it undercuts Donald Trump`s claim that he never
sought Russian government help with his business activities.

According to these brand-new emails, leaking out this afternoon, Trump`s
top lawyer, Michael Cohen, emailed a top Putin aid asking the Putin
government to help the Trump organization make money.

That means, contrary to Trump`s claims, which we have all heard many times,
there is now publicly available written evidence of a top Trump aide
proactively contacting the Kremlin for financial gain.

Now, these emails were submitted today to congressional investigators.
“The Washington Post” first breaking this bombshell story. Cohen, who
plays a high-level role in the Trump organization, emailing a senior Putin
aide, Dmitry Peskov, in January 2016. Of course, the height of the GOP

“I`ve been working with a company based in Russia regarding the development
of a Trump Tower Moscow project,” he wrote, “and the communication between
our two sides has stalled. As this project is too important, I am hereby
requesting your assistance.” That`s Kremlin government assistance. “I
respectfully request someone, preferably you,” he wrote, “contact me, so
that I might discuss the specifics as well as arranging meetings with the
appropriate individuals.”

Michael Cohen is Trump`s longtime lawyer. He does Trump`s bidding. And
here he is, in plain day light today, for the first time everyone can see
it, asking the Putin government for help in the same year that Trump
categorically denied any business or political ties in Russia.


but we`re not involved in Russia.

I have nothing to do with Russia, folks, OK.

I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals in Russia. I have no
deals that could happen in Russia because we`ve stayed away and I have no
loans with Russia.

I have nothing to do with Russia. I have no investments in Russia, none
whatsoever. I don`t have property in Russia.


MELBER: No property in Russia. So, here`s what`s different right now.
Even if that statement by Donald Trump were true, today`s revelation shows
it was not for lack of trying.

The Trump organization wasn`t just trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
When the project stalled, it tried so hard they wanted to get Vladimir
Putin to help seal this deal. And Putin is not known for his charity work.
If he does something for you, he expects something in return.

Let`s get right to it with Carol Lee NBCs national political reporter who
has been on the Russia story; Richard Painter, White House ethics lawyer
for the Bush 43 administration; Glenn Thrush, who covers the White House,
of course, for “The New York Times”.

Richard Painter, this looks big to my investigative eyes. I`m curious,
your view of the significance of this newly revealed information from an
investigative perspective and an ethics perspective?

ADMINISTRATION: Well, in and of itself, there`s nothing illegal about the
Trump organization trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and, of course,
seeking the help of the Russian government because that`s how you do
business over there.

You`ve got to get the government on your side. So, all that is quite

What is very disturbing here is that President Trump can`t tell the truth
about it. And candidate Trump did not tell the truth about it. And that`s
what`s been going on with this Russia story for almost the past year, is
that it`s been drip, drip, drip.

We hear a new revelation every week, sometimes every day, about
relationships between the Trump organization or the Trump campaign and the
Russians. Some of them pose serious legal issues, such as the meeting in
the Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. The law very well may have
been violated there.

Some of these other arrangements are not illegal at all, but they aren`t
telling the truth about it at all. Repeated lies from a wide variety of
people, including the president himself.

And the big picture, the big question here is how dependent is our
president on the Russians for his financial dealings, for his political
success, how many secrets do the Russians know about him that he would not
want to be revealed, how much beholden is he to Vladimir Putin. And these
are the questions we need answers too and the United States House and
Senate investigating, not just this special prosecutor Robert Mueller, who
is only focusing on potential crimes.

This is a critically important issue for our national security as we have
crises developing in the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere in the world.

MELBER: Oh, you put the question, how dependent is Donald Trump on Russia
and how truthfully has he been discussing these issues.

I`m joined as well by Ambassador McFaul, former US Ambassador to Russia
under the Obama administration. Ambassador, Richard was just making a
nuanced point that it is legal to do business in Russia generally and that
does involve the Russian government oftentimes.

And yet, what is so stark in these newly revealed emails, which again are
only coming out because of investigations, is there`s no nice way to say
it. They undercut what the Trump organization and Donald Trump has said.
They undercut the quotes I just played from him when he said no dealings
and no efforts at dealings. Put this in the Russia context for us,

ADMINISTRATION: Well, first of all, as you just said, to do business in
Russia, especially a major business deal like this one that was being
proposed here, almost inevitably you`re going to have to deal with the
Russian government.

That seems clear here. If you`re contacting the President`s Chief
Spokesperson Mr. Peskov, that means that you think you need to deal with
the Kremlin.

But the second point, I think, is also very important that you were just
discussing. Remember that Robert Mueller is investigating criminal
problems, possible violations of the law. This is not that, but it most
certainly sounds like something that`s a violations of norms, normal
practices that we have during presidential elections and disclosures of
what people are doing during presidential elections.

So, that`s why we need those investigative committees in the Senate and the
Congress to do their work as well.

MELBER: Right. And then, you can lay up the timeline, Glenn. Within a
month of this exposure, this is how Donald Trump was speaking about
Vladimir Putin and defending him even against questioning here on MSNBC
about the record of targeting journalists and other autocratic behavior.
Take a listen.


SCARBOROUGH: Well, I mean, also as a person that kills journalists,
political opponents, and invades countries, obviously, that would be a
concern, would it not?

TRUMP: He`s running his country, and at least he`s a leader, unlike what
we have in this country.

SCARBOROUGH: But, again, he kills journalists that don`t agree with him.

TRUMP: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. So -

SCARBOROUGH: So, you, obviously, condemn Vladimir Putin killing
journalists and political opponents, right?

TRUMP: Oh, sure. Absolutely.


MELBER: Glenn, should we view this differently, knowing now what we didn`t
know then without any tax disclosure or other transparency, which is they
were actively seeking not only business in Russia, but again the headline
coming into our newsroom tonight that they were seeking the Kremlin`s help
with that business?

one thing I would caution against - and by the way, hearing him talk like
that about journalists is a little bit chilling, having just sat 20 feet
from him at a press conference.

Look, I think the one danger here is, every single day, we`re hearing
revelations about this. The Felix Sater revelations today. I was stunned,
for instance, by the fact that the White House didn`t deny the fact that
Ivanka Trump sat in Vladimir Putin`s office chair during a visit to Moscow
in 2007. These are sort of extraordinary connections. And as you add one
after the next, it becomes a very interesting picture.

But, again, I think we`re going to have to be patient and see if all of
these various jigsaw pieces paint a picture of criminality.

The one thing I would say -

MELBER: Well, Glenn, I`m going to jump in there and use moderator`s
privilege. We don`t know yet whether they reach criminality. I speak
often as chief legal correspondent about the fact that we can`t prejudge
the outcomes.

What we know now, though, is even if these are not felonies, we now know, I
think, some better understanding of why the tax returns never came out
because they very well may have more than the emails, which show an effort
to get Kremlin help with Russian property, which shows that the Trump
organization was lying about some of this, no?

THRUSH: Yes. I think there definitely is a pattern of them not telling
the truth. But, look, there are things that Donald Trump has done as
president, that are also I think very much worthy of investigation.

I thought “The Washington Post” report about him pressuring Jeff Sessions
to drop the case against Joe Arpaio was an extraordinary revelation.

Ari, at some point, there is so much of this stuff, it`s kind of hard to
keep track. But the one thing I would caution against, I think, are people
drawing all the lines between each component of this.

What is interesting, and I think your guests have pointed this out, what is
interesting is Russia just keeps coming up over and over and over.

I was just at a press conference with the president and the Finnish
president, and even then, President Trump was fairly circumspect in talking
about the threat that Russia posed to Finland. He downplayed it. And I`m
not certain, for instance, that the president is aware that the Soviet
Union invaded Finland prior to World War - during World War II, and that
was one of the bloodiest conflicts.

I`m not sure that he, in his conversations with the Finns, was exactly
aware of that history, but it`s interesting that he always seems to
downplay it.

MELBER: I hear you. You`re cautioning on being vague, Carol. That`s why
we`ve taking care to be so specific. Let`s drill down on who Michael Cohen
is for viewers. This is a man who has worked for Trump for over a decade.
He used to work in Ivanka`s old office.

He wanted a senior administration post, according to a lot of reporting.
Didn`t get it. And as “The Times” reported, if anyone crossed Mr. Trump
or stood in his way, Mr. Cohen, who was known to carry a licensed pistol
in his ankle holster, would cajole, bully or threaten a lawsuit. This
isn`t just any aide, is it?

THRUSH: Right.

CAROL LEE, “NBC” NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: No, it`s definitely not just
any aide. Obviously, this is a close associate to President Trump.

I think we have two things here. One is, there`s, obviously, a very
significant case being built that looks at collusion and Russia and Trump
and his business interest and Russia.

And then, you have what we know publicly which leads to the sort of
perception problem that the president has. We don`t know whether all of
this is going to lead to something where he`s found of criminal wrongdoing.

We do know, however, that, as Glenn said, Russia keeps coming up. It
creates a perception problem. And not only that, but what we`ve seen in
the past when these sorts of stories come out and Russia is back in the
headlines, particularly in ways that are significant as this, the president
tends to overreact, and that`s where he gets himself into trouble. So,
we`ve seen before.

The other thing I would say is that, if you go back to when this was
happening and when President Trump was then a candidate, was talking about
Russia in positive ways and praising Vladimir Putin, that was a time when
the US - that was a real downturn in US relations with Russia.

And this was in 12/2015, was after Russia went into Syria and surprised the
Obama administration. And so, that was already raising eyebrows.

MELBER: No, look, I appreciate - I feel like the odd lawyer out here.
Everyone is talking about how big a legal story it is. It may be a bigger
foreign policy story, these revelations today than legal, although,
Ambassador McFaul, foreign policy has incredible impact.

Take a listen here again with the lens of what we know today about Donald
Trump speaking off the cuff supposedly about getting Russian help during
the campaign.


TRUMP: Russia, if you`re listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing.


MELBER: How does that comment look today, ambassador?

MCFAUL: Just as bad as it always looked, in my view. I just want to
underscore two points about this bigger story because I do think the drip,
drip, drip, we sometimes forget a couple of core things that are still

One is, they never tell us about these connections with the Russians until
it`s disclosed by somebody else. And that makes people wonder what are
they hiding. If there`s nothing to hide, why are we just learning about
this story today.

And number two, candidate Trump when he was saying that and President
Trump, up to today, including in the press conference today, is alone among
Democrats, Republicans, I would say he`s even alone within his own
government, in speaking the way he does about Vladimir Putin and Russia.

Everybody else worries about the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed
Crimea, bombed to smithereens cities in Syria, intervened in our elections
in 2016. He`s the one person that is somehow out of bounds of that
narrative, why is that the case? That`s the question that I think is still
perplexing and we need an answer to.

MELBER: Right. And his Twitter stream may not be all that revealing all
the time, but the fact that it attacks literally almost everyone who
crosses him except Vladimir Putin, even after sanctions are put to punish
US diplomats in Moscow, is very, very interesting piece of evidence.

Carol and Glenn, thank you for sharing your reporting with us. Ambassador
and Mr. Painter, please stay with me because there is another breaking
report on another angle of this coming from these documents that went over
the congressional committees today.

We`re going to dig into that. And Ivanka Trump, as mentioned, sitting in
Putin`s private office in the Kremlin, allegedly. Big news, after the


MELBER: The other Russia story breaking tonight reveals a Trump-linked
businessman pitching a business deal that would put Trump allegedly in the
White House with Putin`s help.

A newly revealed email, this one from Trump associate Felix Sater, boasting
that a Moscow business deal will “get Donald elected”.

The email exchange documented by “The New York Times” and this again
involves top Trump aide Michael Cohen.

“I`ll get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. Buddy, our
boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all
of Putin`s team to buy in on this. I will,” he wrote.

Now, consider what we`re learning just from today`s reports. On the one
hand, Trump aides writing to the Kremlin asking for business help; on the
other hand, Russian fixers telling Trump aides the Kremlin would help
Donald Trump.

This would look bad even if we didn`t know that Russia ultimately hacked
the 2016 election. The very combination of carrot and stick that has been
chronicled by Russia experts and suggested in the infamous 2016 dossier.

Now, these new emails also show Sater, the Russian businessman, recounting
how weirdly, in 2006, he allegedly arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putin`s
private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin.

Why would a businessman have such deep ties to the Kremlin? Well, Russia
experts explain that, under Putin, there are no truly independent private
markets. Every money trail leads back to Putin, if he chooses. And he
rewards businessmen who do his bidding. He punishes those who do not, like
his campaign to bankrupt and jail the billionaire who once ran Russia`s
largest oil company.

As the Russian journalist and Putin dissident Masha Gessen wrote explaining
that story, Putin used the attack to give the Russian business community
two options, bend to Putin`s will or suffer the fate of a now jailed

Joining me is that Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen, the author of
The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin. Also with me
Ken Dilanian, “NBC News” intelligence reporter, who has been on the story
from the start. And back with us former White House ethics lawyer Richard
Painter and former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.

Masha, I start with you. We see all of these new emails telling this
story. Does it fit with what we know about Putin`s Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, I`m not sure what story these emails are telling.
So, let`s just not rush to conclusions, OK. That email from Sater makes no
sense. Can you make it make sense? I can`t make it make sense.

MELBER: I could make it make sense. I don`t know if it`s true. I think
he`s pitching the idea that Russia would be helpful and the business deal
would be good for Donald financially and politically.

GEESEN: But we don`t understand what he`s saying. There is - what the
connection is between the business deal and getting Donald elected.

MELBER: It`s not articulated.

GEESEN: It is not at all articulated. Considering that we also have
learned that Michael Cohen wrote to Peskov, Putin`s press secretary, and
apparently it sputtered and ended in nothing, this isn`t much of a story
that`s being told by these emails, right?

If you`re asking me about the connection between business and the Kremlin,
no business is done in Russia without the Kremlin, right? If you want to
have success, if you want to have a chance of success, you have to have
connections to the Kremlin.

MELBER: Ambassador, can you speak to that and your view of the theory, the
case in emails. Again, I agree, we don`t know. One theory, and the reason
why these are what we would call investigative interest, is they suggest
part of a larger conversation about Russians offering to help Donald Trump
in the same way that the Trump Tower meeting had Russians saying allegedly
they were speak on behalf of the Kremlin and could rough up Hillary Clinton
in an information campaign.

MCFAUL: That`s right. There is a larger narrative out there with lots of
data to support it that the Kremlin wanted Trump to win and did what they
could to try to help him win, including, most audaciously, stealing emails
from the DNC and John Podesta and publishing them.

We know that to be true. We also know it to be true that there were
connections between Trump-affiliated people and Russian-affiliated Kremlin
people, business people, that were trying to do business deals.

As back as early as 2008, that trail has been talked about. What we don`t
know is the details of that trail precisely because we haven`t seen the tax
documents, we haven`t had full disclosure of what was happening, and that`s
why when we see things like this it raises a question, is there a bigger
story here.

These emails, I agree with Masha, are not definitive in that, but the fact
that we didn`t know about these contacts before, we didn`t know that there
was a Trump Tower being proposed in Moscow (INAUDIBLE) begs a question what
is it that we need to know to know the full story.

MELBER: Right. Ken, that`s the flipside. If this were all coming out of
the normal course, say, around the month it happened, then it would look
perhaps less suspicious. The problem is the sound I played, in the
interest of time, I`m not going to play it again, was all of these very
public, very categorical denials of having any business in Russia, Ken.

right, Ari. It`s extraordinary. Even leaving aside this whole question of
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it would have been
extraordinary for any major party candidate for president to be like, oh,
by the way, I have this business deal I`m trying to do with Vladimir Putin
government in Russia and I would like to be your president.

That would be disqualifier in many senses in any other election. So, we
didn`t know that was happening at the time and Donald Trump actually denied

But the other interesting thing about this whole exchange in these emails
is this character, Felix Sater. He`s one of the most mysterious and
fascinating characters in the whole Trump Russia saga, a Russian-born,
Brooklyn raised.

He got into trouble back in the 90s. He got into a bar fight and served
jail time after allegedly stabbing a man with a margarita glass.

MELBER: Broken margarita glass. He is on the far right for our viewers,
the man you`re talking about. Go ahead.

DILANIAN: Exactly. So, fast forward to 2008, he is implicated in a stock
swindle, a mafia-connected stock swindle, but makes a deal with the FBI and
spends years cooperating to the point where the Justice Department later
says he was very helpful in a national security sense.

We still don`t know the extent of his cooperation and what he did, but he`s
also working for Donald Trump. He`s got a business card that says he`s
working for Trump. But in a deposition, Trump says, I would know this guy
if he walks in the room.

So, now we have Michael Cohen in these emails saying Sater was trying to
get me to go to Moscow and I didn`t want to. There`s an implication there.
Was Sater a dangle? Was Sater working for the Russians trying to induce
the Trump organization? There is a lot we don`t know about why this deal
didn`t come to fruition.

But here is what we do know. Michael Cohen emailing “NBC News” today. He
talked to Donald Trump about this deal on three occasions, he said, and
signed a non-binding letter of intent in 2015.

MELBER: Richard Painter, your view on this part, in the Sater connection
and the lack of transparency?

PAINTER: Well, just one more shoe to drop on the (INAUDIBLE). There have
been shoes dropping on the Russia story literally every other day or
certainly every week since the election.

The big picture is that the Russians have been at this game at least since
the 1917 Revolution in Russia where the Communist sought to undermine
Western democracies and choose who would run governments in Europe.

And they succeeded, particularly after World War II in Eastern Europe, not
only through tax and weaponry and armed force, but through manipulation of
elections and through the communist parties. They tried in the United
States. They didn`t succeed.

But they struck the jackpot on this one. It`s abundantly obvious they
wanted Donald Trump in the White House. He was their man. They didn`t
like Clinton. They like the Obama administration. And they feel that
President Trump is going to be beholden to them.

This needs to be investigated by the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees. This goes well beyond the criminal investigations Special
Prosecutor Robert Mueller. It`s critically important that we know whether
our president is beholden to the Russians.

We know that the Russians helped choose him as president, but to what
extent is he beholden to the Russians. Are we a banana republic? Are we
going to have other world powers choosing our leadership? Are we an
independent country? And this is an issue that Congress needs to address.
And all of these facts need to be laid out on the table.

We need to find out about the Trump organization`s financial arrangements
with the Russians and payments he has received. And they haven`t opened
the books. They won`t even disclose the tax returns.

All of this needs to be disclosed immediately. It`s not a partisan issue.
This is an American issue. It`s about our own independence and our
national security.

MELBER: Masha, you are bowing your head. I don`t know if it`s skeptically
or more insulated?

GESSEN: It`s skeptical. I think it`s overstating the evidence that we
have. But we know Americans elected Donald Trump, right? And it is a huge
problem that we have Americans elected Donald Trump.

He lies. He admires Vladimir Putin, apparently quite sincerely, regardless
of whether Putin has anything on him or not. He is destroying the American
government as it was constituted before he became president.

All of this is out in the open. That doesn`t make the United States a
banana republic. That`s not Putin doing that stuff. That`s Trump doing
the stuff, right?

MELBER: You are talking about Americans being accountable of -

GESSEN: I`m talking about Americans being accountable and I`m talking
about focusing on what`s out in the open, instead of imagining that
somebody is pulling the strings and turning the United States into a banana
republic, which is just such an absurd thing to say.

MELBER: Do you think Trump has autocratic tendencies?

GESSEN: Absolutely, Trump has autocratic tendencies.

MELBER: So, I think what Richard is referring to is the notion that you
have the potential foreign meddling with - well, not potential, the
meddling in, the collusion a question, and then Trump governing the way he

GESSEN: We don`t know anything about collusion. So far, the evidence that
you have just produced is evidence of corruption. It is in fact further
evidence of Trump lying as if we needed any more evidence of Trump lying.

MELBER: Last word, ambassador.

MCFAUL: Well, I feel we`re like talking about apples and oranges here. On
the one hand, are we a banana republic? No, were not. Our institutions
are strong. We`re going to survive the Trump presidency. I`m very
confident in saying that.

That doesn`t mean that there`s not suspicious things involved in the
relationship between the Trump organization and various Russian

And I just go back to the point I made earlier. Why is it only when
somebody does incredible investigative reporting that we hear about this?
That to me suggests that they`re covering up something.

And if they didn`t have anything to cover up, they should just lay it all
out in one 24-hour story and we would be done with it. The fact that they
don`t leads me to believe that there`s more that we need to learn.

MELBER: Right. That`s an important question to rest on that we will
continue to look at. I don`t want to end on a joke, but the old saying
what happens when ambassador, a dissident, a reporter, and an ethics lawyer
walk into a bar. You get a lot of different interesting views.

Thank you for coming on THE BEAT.

GESSEN: Thank you.

MCFAUL: Thanks for having us.

MELBER: Masha, Ken, Richard, and Ambassador McFaul, thank you all.

Now, Donald Trump today says he is standing by the controversial pardon of
Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff. Are Republican, though, getting
his back? I`m going to speak to a leading conservative and get into the



patriot. Sheriff Joe loves our country. Sheriff Joe protected our borders.
And Sheriff Joe was very unfairly treated by the Obama administration.

So I stand by my pardon of Sheriff Joe.


ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: President Trump defending his controversial pardon
of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio late today. Trump who pardoned Arpaio as
Hurricane Harvey bore down on the U.S. Friday night added that the pardon
was popular among the attendees at his political rally last week. That`s
the kind of nakedly political detail most presidents avoid admitting would
enter their calculus in this kind of decision. Now, a judge held Arpaio in
contempt of in July based on his previous flouting. A federal court orders
to stop detaining people based solely on his suspicion they were
undocumented immigrants. The pardon already proven to be one of Trump`s
most divisive moves as president, even drawing a rare rebuke from
Republican Speaker Paul Ryan. So for conservative perspective on the
pardon, we welcome American Conservative Union Chair Matt Schlapp and a
former Political Director – we should mention – to President Bush. How
are you?

with you.

MELBER: Thanks for being here, Matt. I`ll ask you straight up. How can a
law and order President defend a pardon undermining the rule of a federal
judge in upholding a law issued before this case was even completed?

SCHLAPP: Well, very simply, which is the constitution lays out the powers
in each branch of government. And one of the powers vested in the
executive branch as you know well is the ability to pardon. It`s basically
an unlimited power. It can be done at any time in the criminal process and
Donald Trump believed that this was the right time to intervene and he did

MELBER: Right. I know he did it. And the Supreme Court has held you can
do it at any time. Was it a good idea and does it reflect conservative
principles of law?

SCHLAPP: Yes. So the first question is, are there legal questions
involved here and I don`t think there are. The second question is, what`s
the right way for presidents to handle pardons and this is where I do think
the White House should be cautious and careful to come up with a process,
and a thorough process and most presidents do that. As a matter of fact,
politically, pardons have gotten presidents in a lot of trouble. And
obviously president Bill Clinton exited the White House with a huge cloud
over his head because of mistakes in judgment around pardons. So I think
having a big process would be useful.

Now, that being said, it is quite stunning for the President to do this so
early in his administration. Most presidents do this as they`re kind of
slinking out the door because they don`t want to deal with the political
consequences of making tough decisions. As with most things, Donald Trump
approaches it from a completely different standpoint. He likes Sheriff
Joe. He thinks Sheriff Joe Arpaio was trying to enforce our immigration
laws so he did it really early and now we`re talking about it.

MELBER: Well, he admitted – he admitted – we are talking about it. He
admitted today, he thinks it`s popular among his supporters so he didn`t
act like it was some sort of political courage, the opposite. He kind of
American Idoled it and held it out at the rally, people cheered and he
cited that cheering today on the substance. I want to read to you from the
contempt citation so folks can understand. It was a finding that there was
a definite order that Arpaio violated by failing to do anything to ensure
compliance and directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no
criminal charges could be filed. Some are conservatives have spoken out
about this and I`m wondering if you as a leader of a conservative
organization, what is conservative? Or law and order about detaining
people when you cannot substantiate the charges against them and add on to
that the fact it was done according to a federal judge in a racially
discriminatory manner? Why defend that?

SCHLAPP: Well, the – what the facts are, from my understanding of doing
research on the topic, is that being in the state illegally was not enough
for the border agency, and the feds, to do anything about this population
of folks who were here illegally. They had to commit a state infraction on
top of it. So we get to the question about how we handle our federal
immigration laws. What it seems like these judges are saying is that being
here illegally is not enough to trip the legal process. You actually have
to do something additionally, you have to break a state law. And what that
basically means is you have amnesty when it comes to breaking federal
immigration laws.

MELBER: But Matt, that`s what the Supreme Court ruled. I mean, you are
accurately describing the state of the law. And the question is, why would
a president go in and try to allow for that kind of attention – and let me
read to you one thing from that so the folks have the benefit of it. They
said if you believe or know that a person is in the country unlawfully you
cannot detain them based on that alone, which you mentioned. You either
have to have arrest based on state charges or you release. Those are the
options. Again, to go to conservative principles, that`s what
conservatives used to cheer because you don`t want a sprawling government
power that has no check on it.

SCHLAPP: I believe that it`s perfectly appropriate, though, for the – for
sheriffs to work with the federal authorities, to make sure people who are
here illegally aren`t able to stay and flout the law. So it comes down to
a basic question of this, which we`re having a disagreement on in the
country, I will agree with you but it should be enough to trigger federal
law enforcement if somebody is here illegally. And if we want to change
those laws, and say, look, we want to – we want to soften them, well,
that`s the option of the legislative branch. But in the meantime, you have
to uphold the law. Now, you can ask this question about the process by
which people were detained, and there were all types of complications about
that but it comes down to the fundamental question which is, do sheriffs
have the ability to work with the federal government to bring up the –

MELBER: But Matt, respectfully, Sir, the question has been answered. We
are a nation of laws and the Supreme Court has held that the state doesn`t
do that on its own because it doesn`t have the federal powers. So that is
– the answer has been issued and then you have judges enforcing it and
then you have a president who ran a law and order to come in and say that
what federal judge`s rule isn`t good enough before the guy was ever even
sentenced. It is – it is mind-boggling to me to hear intellectually
honest conservatives to defend that as for the rule of law. It`s obviously
undermining what the federal judge held.

SCHLAPP: What basically what the federal judge said is that being here
illegally is not enough to trigger the feds to do something.

MELBER: To do state detention.

SCHLAPP: There`s a people – there`s a lot of people across the country
that don`t think that you should be in a safe harbor, and that immigration
laws shouldn`t apply to you because simply you haven`t also committed a
state infraction. And I think what the question here with Arpaio is that
he said, OK, I`m going to allow the feds, I`m going to bring this to the
border patrol folks and say, look, we have these folks who are here
illegally, will you do something with them. The border is going to –

MELBER: Because we`re out of time, this is the last question I want you on
the record on.


MELBER: Is this –

SCHLAPP: Well, this has all been on the record.

MELBER: You`re right. It`s all on the record, Matt. Is this the new
position of conservatives, that the President should go around and undo
federal judicial orders that are consistent with federal supreme court
precedence because they don`t like the outcome? Is that the new law and

SCHLAPP: Let`s be very clear. A pardon is about an individual and it does
nothing to change the state of the law. It simply means that individual
receives different treatment. It could be clemency or complete
exoneration. In this case with Sheriff Arpaio, he is now out of legal harm
but it doesn`t change this basic question in this country about what do
sheriffs and local law enforcement do when they find people are here
illegally? It sounds like what I hear the other side saying is they can do
nothing. And the fact is, that means blanket amnesty. If you do that with
immigration laws, you can do that with all kinds of other laws and that`s
the problem.

MELBER: I don`t want our viewers to get the wrong impression. You keep
referring to other people. It`s not an issue of other people, it`s what
the Supreme Court has held about who has which powers and I`m old enough –
I`m not that old – but I`m old enough to remember when conservatives were
big on federalism, and having those divisions. We`re out of time –

SCHLAPP: And the federal – and the federal government had the obligation
to take these folks who are here illegally and enforce the law. And they
decided not to do that. That is also an abridgment of their duties.

MELBER: Matt, I always like talking to you because we go back and forth.

SCHLAPP: You, too, sir.

MELBER: It gets more and more intense. I hope to have you back on THE
BEAT. Thanks for being here.

SCHLAPP: Thank you.

MELBER: I appreciate it.

Now, ahead, some more breaking news. This from NBC News on the Russia
probe and what Special Counsel Mueller is looking at. I got this five
minutes ago and I`ll bring it to you right after this break.


MELBER: 6:44 p.m. on the East Coast and we have a breaking NBC News
exclusive. Sources telling our newsroom right now, that Special Counsel
Mueller is focusing on President Trump`s role in crafting that response to
the quite suspicious Don Jr. June 2016 meeting with Russians at Trump
Tower. Here is what`s new. Investigators on Mueller`s team, according to
NBC sources, want to know what Trump knew about the meeting, and whether he
intervened explicitly to conceal its purpose. This is obviously new. It`s
also important because Mueller has already indicated that potential White
House obstruction is in his criminal investigative purview. Joining me now
is SiriusXM`S Zerlina Maxwell, a former Hillary Clinton Aide, and
Washington Post Catherine Rampell. Catherine, this is one of those news
nights. We came into the room with two big Russia stories going at new
revelations in the e-mails about business dealings. Here we are on the
other side, on the investigative side. Your view of this story?

keep track of every additional development, because it`s like a Russian
novel, right? There are too many characters to keep track of, and too many
twists and turns. It does make me think that Trump was not terribly
forward looking, surprise, surprise when they basically tried to lie
repeatedly about what the purpose of the meeting was, who was in the
meeting. I mean, the more that they try to block what the public knew
about it, the longer this investigation into it gets stretched out. They
should have just been – you know, up-front.

MELBER: And let`s be clear, the reason this is so important Elena, is this
meeting was problematic because it was the first contemporaneously
documented time that people claiming to represent Russian government
interests were offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, which matches with some of
what happens in the campaign. Then on top of that, you have a thing that
happens a lot with Donald Trump. He takes an action without thinking about
the reaction.


MELBER: In the case of firing Jim Comey, it almost certainly led to the
appointment of the Special Prosecutor who we`re discussing right now.
We`re literally probably wouldn`t be discussing this if he hadn`t taken
that want on action. What`s new right now is NBC`s Julia Ainsley and Tom
Winter reporting out that sources close to Mueller saying, he`s looking at
the spin, the P.R., the crafting of that statement as its own potential
legal issue.

every piece of new evidence goes to Donald Trump`s state of mind at the
time. Why was he doing certain things, why did he lie about the meetings
to begin with, and then why did he wait until the reporting came out to
say, oh, well, we did have this meeting, or here`s what the meeting was
about, it was about adoptions when it really wasn`t? And I think that if
you think about after the G-20 when they`re on the plane and essentially
Vanity Fair said it was a frenzy going on trying to come up with a
statement to react to this e-mail, it essentially looks like they were
doing some sort of crisis management, which the President was directly
involved in. And people who have worked with him said he is somewhat of a
micromanager. So I think Mueller is rightfully looking at this stuff
because it goes to his state of mind and perhaps intent.

MELBER: Catherine, there is a saying if you know, if you want a job done
right, do it yourself. Donald Trump –

RAMPELL: Or listen to the experts? I mean, that would be the version that
I heard abide by but yes, go on.

MELBER: He thinks he`s his best spokesperson. He thinks he`s his best
business person, he thinks he`s his best campaign manager. He did
engineered an electoral college victory. So, some of these things you can
understand where he got the ideas. And apparently, he also thinks he`s his
best lawyer because there`s not a lawyer in the country that would tell you
to personally get involved in writing the defense of facts that you weren`t
a party to because he wasn`t in the meeting. I mean, the best news for
Donald Trump was you`re not in the meeting. Donald Trump`s legal strategy
was to find a way to get himself implicated in this meeting by talking to
his son about how he describes it.

RAMPELL: And to insert himself into a statement that, again, was – from
what the reporting has been – was attempting to be more forthcoming
allegedly, right? That they initially said they wanted to get ahead of the
story, and say, OK, here`s what happened, here`s what we did, let`s not
make the cover-up worse than the crime. We don`t know what the crime was
to the extent that there may have been one, but that`s what the reporting
said. And he inserts himself into this situation when he may not have
needed to. It`s kind of the Peter Principle at work here, right?

MELBER: What`s the Peter Principle?

RAMPELL: That people rise to the level of their incompetence. Like to the
level they where they can no longer add value. It`s that he`s risen to the
top and he thinks that because he`s at the top, he must know everything and
he`s writing off every piece of advice, legal or otherwise, that he could
be – legal, political, for that matter, that he could be getting– that he
could benefit from. But he thinks he knows best because he`s the boss.

MELBER: I see your Peter Principle and I raise you a Peter Pan principle.
When does Donald Trump grow up and into the office here? Because this
report that I want to read, just so folks again have the understanding of
it, federal investigators working for Mueller focused on Trump`s role in
crafting the response to the meeting between the Russians and his son
Donald Jr. This is three sources to NBC News moments ago. We just got it
saying, Prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting and
whether he sought to conceal its purpose. The Peter Pan principle would be
if you allow me to just –

RAMPELL: Please.

MELBER: That if you to grow into being president and that means letting a
White House counsel and your criminal lawyers and your defense team deal
with this. And the benign explanation was this was an error that Donald
Trump made because he cares so much about his son, Don Jr. What, “any
father would do.” I wonder if your view as someone who works for a
campaign up against him thinks there`s a less benign view of this?

MAXWELL: I don`t know if there is a less benign view because we don`t have
all of the facts. What I do know is that this does not look good in
context of all of the other details we know. When you put this on the time
line of what was happening last summer, this June meeting was not just some
meeting that Donald Trump might have wanted to get involved in creating a
statement to help his son Don Jr. This was at the time right before and
during the hack of the DNC and the later release of e-mails in July. And
so, in the context of what was happening at the time in the campaign, if
you put all those facts together, Donald Trump getting involved in this
does look like he is covering up something. I`m not saying he is because
we need more facts, but I do think that when you put it on the timeline is
when it becomes a problem and it doesn`t look like he`s just trying to help
his son.

MELBER: And that goes to denials that we`ve been covering throughout the
show and a couple of stories. Here was Don Jr.`s denial.


DONALD TRUMP JR., PRESIDENT TRUMP`S SON: I`m more than happy to be
transparent about it and more than happy to cooperate with everyone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So as far as you know, as far as this incident`s
concern, this is all of it.

TRUMP JR.: This is everything. This is everything.


MELBER: Catherine?

RAMPELL: That wasn`t everything. Clearly, because they revised their
story multiple times after that.

MELBER: Catherine Rampell and Zerlina Maxwell joining us on a very, very
new story about an old story, a new story about an old story. Thank you,
both for being here. We will be right back with something new.


MELBER: An NBC News exclusive this hour. Special Council Bob Mueller is
now focusing on Donald Trump`s personal role in crafting that response to
the Don Junior meeting. We`re going to continue that conversation in our
Facebook and Twitter @THEBEATWITHARI or e-mail ARI@MSNBC.COM if you have
questions for me. And now as always, it is time for, “WHO SAID IT.”
Here`s the quote, “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than
you can possibly imagine.” And in a twist tonight, there are are two
people who have been saying it. The answers and why it is suddenly
relevant after this.


MELBER: We are back with a really good, “WHO SAID IT.” The quote, “If you
strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Now, there are two people who said it. One is Obi-Wan Kenobi while
fighting Darth Vader in Star Wars Episode Four, A New Hope.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful
than you can possibly imagine.


MELBER: A great line from a great film now being repurposed in politics by
this man, former White House Aide Sebastian Gorka, left his post there
Friday night during the hurricane and made the following comment this
weekend about Steve Bannon, who is also recently left, to go back to
Breitbart. With Steve back at the helm, it is like the last scenes of star
wars, do you remember what Obi-Wan Kenobi said to Darth? If you strike me
down, I will be more powerful than you can ever imagine. Gorka saying,
that Bannon is some kind of Obi-Wan which of course begs the question, who
would Gorka be in this analogy? Twitter had an answer. Seb, Bannon is
more Jabba the Hutt and you yourself are pretty close to Jar Jar Binks. If
you know Star Wars, you know there is no lower insult. All right, that
does it for THE BEAT, “HARDBALL” starts right now.

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Trump tackles storms. Let`s play HARDBALL.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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