The Beat with Ari Melber, Transcript 9/12/17 FBI Investigating “Sputnik” Russian news agency

Andrew Feinberg, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Leah Wright Rigueur

Date: September 12, 2017
Guest: Andrew Feinberg, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Leah Wright Rigueur

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST, “MTP DAILY: THE BEAT with Ari Melber starts right
now. Ari?

ARI MELBER: Chuck, music knows no party.

TODD: There you go, especially a little ragtime, right?

MELBER: Ragtime on classic Americana. Thank you, Chuck. I love it.

Tonight, we have major developments on the Irma cleanup as well as the
Russia investigation. In a moment, I`m going to speak live to “Wall Street
Journal”! reporter with news on Jared Kushner`s legal complications. That
is Peter Nicholas. And it`s going to be, I think, an interesting

But, first, we want to bring you the latest on the aftermath of Hurricane
Irma. The body count is now 53 people killed in this storm. And at this
hour, we can tell you 7 million people in the US still don`t have power.

Search and rescue units now on the ground in the Florida Keys. Officials
say, a quarter of all homes in that area have been destroyed. Let`s get
right to it from the Florida Keys, NBC`s Gadi Schwartz. What`s the latest?

GADI SCHWARTZ, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Ari. It`s not just search and
rescue on the ground. It`s search and rescue out in the ocean as well.
They`re going to check submerged boats and submerged sailboats, in
particular, to see if people are inside.

A lot of those are live-aboard boats, and so they think that there may be
people inside that tried to ride out this storm.

We`re right now in Cudjoe Key. It`s an area that took one of the biggest
hits from Hurricane Irma. I want to show you what we`re talking about.
These are one of the weird peculiarities of hurricanes. The winds blow in
all kinds of different directions.

First of all, the ocean is this way, OK. And so, Hurricane Irma came
ashore this way. But I want to show you this. This is kind of a mystery
that`s been puzzling a lot of the neighbors around here. They are thinking
tornado because, if we step over here, you could see this is a mobile home.
And this mobile home was actually sitting about 20, 30 feet over there,
just next to these mobile homes that you see right next to it.

And somehow, the winds of Hurricane Irma picked this mobile home up over
this fence that`s about 5 feet tall, snapped that concrete power pole and
dropped it right here in the street. You could see this is a kitchen sink
here. This is the very flat bed that the mobile home was on. This is
where the living room was. This is where one of the bedrooms was. This is
the destruction of Hurricane Irma.

This mobile home, obviously, destroyed while others seem to be spared.
Some homes down the street, they were also spared, while others had their
roofs ripped off. So, it`s kind of interesting to see how selective Irma

Some neighbors coming back right now and some neighbors are very concerned
about those who have evacuated fortunately because their homes have been
destroyed, feeling a little bit bad because their homes are OK and they`re
goanna have to tell their neighbors that their homes have been destroyed
because they`re not allowed back in here.

One thing, though, that we`ve noticed is cell phone service out here is
non-existent, power is non-existent, no one has access to food or water,
the supplies are starting to run low. It`s been four, five days. And so,
now people are starting to try to figure out where they can go. They`re
scavenging really.

We`ve talked to a few people that are going around, looking for water,
looking for gas. And it sounds like, down in Florida Keys, there are lines
forming for basic necessities, so they`re hoping the Calvary comes in and
resupply soon. Ari?

MELBER: Absolutely. We`re hoping on that as well. And NBC`s Gadi
Schwartz, thank you for that on the ground report.

Now, we turn to the breaking news on where Bob Mueller`s Russia
investigation is headed. We`ve reported on the FBI interviews, the grand
jury subpoenas, even that home raid of Paul Manafort, Trump`s former
campaign chair.

But, tonight, the Russia news involves a vague word that is known to anyone
who has ever worked a federal investigation, production. Here`s how
Trump`s lawyer John Dowd puts it. They have a wonderful team handling the

He is referring to document production. This is where Trump`s legal team
has to review every single White House document before handing it over to
Bob Mueller.

And Dowd spoke about the production because “The Daily Beast” reported
these hand-offs have begun. Now, Dowd clearly trying to praise the current
legal team. And he`s a recent member, having come on board in June, which
was a critical period according to a new “Wall Street Journal” report.

At the time, some Trump lawyers were trying to push out Jared Kushner from
the White House, alarmed by his Trump Tower meeting with the Russians,
which, at the time, had not been exposed.

The report says the lawyers discussed their concerns with President Trump
at the White House. They even wrote a draft statement that could explain
Kushner`s departure had he departed.

Now, today, Trump`s lawyers are saying, anyone who did want to undermine
Trump is no longer on the team. And his spokesperson says, she was unaware
of the discussion.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jared Kushner, was there any discussion about him
stepping aside earlier this year, leaving the administration?

that I`m aware of. And, certainly, no presentation as both attorneys have
gone on record to say.


MELBER: Now, here`s the thing about that. Sanders would not know about
any kind of conversation like that because it`s legally privileged. And if
Donald Trump`s criminal defense lawyer told her about it, that would
literally break the privilege.

What`s more significant, though, is why these lawyers thought Kushner had
these serious legal issues. Here are five reasons. He met with many
Russians, including two meetings with the Russian ambassador, along with
Gen. Mike Flynn, and one of them where they allegedly discussed creating a
secret back channel with Russia.

And three, that included meetings with Russian bank executives and Kushner
failed to disclose many of those meetings on his legally-required security
forms. His corrections to that, as you may recall, added up to over
hundred more foreign meetings and then filed he was at that secret Trump
Tower meeting, of course.

Now, that might be enough to sink a normal staffer. But these lawyers knew
they were basically asking Donald Trump to fire his son-in-law. And
everyone knows Trump`s golden rule follows the Godfather. As Michael
Corleone told Fredo, “don`t ever take sides against the family.”

So, these lawyers thought there was even a shot that Trump would take their
advice. Whatever they were concerned about, about the family, had to be

With me now first is “Wall Street Journal” reporter Peter Nicholas, who
broke this story. Good day to you.


MELBER: Peter, you don`t have all of the details, but you sure have some
interesting ones. What light can you shed on giving someone, any client,
let alone this powerful president, the advice that maybe you want to
relieve your son-in-law of his job?

NICHOLAS: Well, I think it was a tough decision for the lawyers. And they
weren`t necessarily united in the position. There were some lawyers who
believed that he had legal complications that were more serious than those
of any other aide in the White House and believed, for that reason, his
continued presence there was a problem.

One scenario is, if he even talks casually about the Russia investigation,
with anybody who is working in the White House, Bob Muller, the special
counsel, might want to know what was said and might ask to speak to those
people who were in those meetings with Kushner.

So, for those reasons, some of the attorneys believe that Kushner needed to
step aside. They brought those concerns to the president.

But there were some others who didn`t think that step was necessary. We
quote John Dowd, who is now the lead attorney, in the piece saying that
Kushner is actually fine and thinks really highly of him, didn`t need to
step down.

MELBER: I`m also reading from the piece about this cover story or
description of an event that didn`t occur. So, it`s really fascinating
because you`re sort of deep inside these debates. You write, “the
statement on behalf of Mr. Kushner, had he left, expressed regret that the
political environment had become so toxic that what he viewed as a standard
meeting was becoming a weapon for Mr. Trump`s critics.”

Is that in your view a cover story or is that 100 percent accurate in
describing the reasons for his recommended departure?

NICHOLAS: Well, it shows the seriousness with which the legal team and the
associates had drafted that statement were taking this. They thought it
was a real possibility that Kushner would step aside. They wanted to be
prepared for that.

So, they created these talking points that would be used. They`re putting
the best spin possible on it, the best interpretation of it, because they
work for - essentially, their client is the president and this is his son-
in-law, of course, that they`re talking about.

But it was a serious concern. The talking points were never used because,
ultimately, this is the president`s decision and he decided that Kushner
didn`t do anything wrong, there was no need for him to step aside, and,
ultimately, that`s the decision that he made.

It ran counter to some of the advice he was getting from some of the
lawyers, but it`s a political decision and it`s the president`s to make.

MELBER: Right. One that the lawyers thought was legal enough they wanted
to advise on. They certainly don`t advise on all White House personnel.
But you`ve got the big story of the day. I want to thank you Peter
Nicholas for joining.

NICHOLAS: Thanks, Ari.

MELBER: I want to turn right to Nick Akerman, former Watergate prosecutor;
Aisha Moodie-Mills, President of Victory Fund; and attorney Paul Abrams, a
former editor of the “Yale Law Journal” who was first writing about the
prospect of Trump-Russia pardons back in June.

Nick, walk us through how this works. As I mentioned, you don`t give
advice as a lawyer if you think there`s no chance of it being followed.
That`s basically a waste of time, but they had to know this was something
that was going to be a real fight with the president.

it was a waste of time. There was no way that Donald Trump was going to
listen to the lawyers on this issue.

I think it was pretty obvious that Jared Kushner is somebody who is never
going to be fired by President Trump. He wasn`t qualified to do the job he
was there for in the first place, whether it was making peace with Israel
or reforming the entire government. He was just not qualified.

But everything he did, he did at the behest of Donald Trump. And there is
no way, just like in The Godfather, he was one of the capos for the boss.
He was carrying out Mr. Trump`s orders and there was no way that Donald
Trump was ever going to listen to his lawyers on this issue.

MELBER: Paul, I want to play for you the sound from Jared Kushner because
he did do the meetings and he and his own lawyers have expressed their view
that he has been cooperating and they don`t see him as any kind of legal
liability. Take a listen to this rare time that he spoke publicly.


I`ve voluntarily provided will show that all of my actions were proper and
occurred in the normal course of events of a very unique campaign.

Let me be very clear. I did not collude with Russia nor do I know if
anyone else in the campaign who did so. I had no improper contacts. I
have not relied on Russian funds for my businesses. And I`ve been fully
transparent in providing all requested information.


MELBER: Paul, do you think Jared Kushner is in the clear?

And I think that his basic problem is and will be credibility. And I think
the lawyers probably were advising them to have him leave because the
further he was away from the White House for a longer period of time, the
easier it would be for a son-in-law to claim that what he did both was

And also, an issue that`s going to come up is did he tell the president
about this meeting or that meeting or what he did. And as a son-in-law -
whatever the situation, as a son-in-law, he has a higher bar of credibility
to say that it was never discussed.

MELBER: And, Aisha, the larger question about President Trump`s judgment
is what exactly does this individual bring to the table. Nick was arguing
that he`s unqualified. He certainly doesn`t have a lot of government or
international experience. We`ve heard that he has a massive portfolio.

But, clearly, as I`m emphasizing, what`s so interesting about this report
is that the lawyers who stay out of whatever they can stay out of, they`re
only there to give criminal legal advice. That`s their foundation.
They`re not there to second guess who you send to the Middle East.

But they`d reached a judgment that it would be better to maybe have him
gone, some of them. And other than family ties, what do you see as the
judgment and basis to keep this individual in the White House?

question. And I think we all realize that the family ties for Trump means
that he has more people around him to hide his dirt. And that`s why he`s

The fact that Jared Kushner had hundreds of meetings that he then failed to
disclose and had to go back and disclose them, the fact that he`s met
multiple times with Russians and tried to create a back channel, and
clearly has some kind of business interest that we`re not actually getting
to the bottom of shows that there is some benefit to the Trump enterprise
for having this engagement with Russia, for completely ignoring the fact
that Russia has propagated all the fake news that was out there during the
campaign, that they`ve been creating all this fake energy against Hillary
Clinton, et cetera. And so, they`re turning a blind eye to that.

And I think that Jared Kushner`s point and reason for being in that White
House is to be the guy to bury the dirt and keep the secrets, and that is

And the fact that this guy has a high-level security clearance and he lied
to get it essentially is really problematic, and I think that that should
be revoked.

MELBER: Nick, is that your view that if other individuals acted the way he
did on government security clearances, they would face a stronger reaction?

AKERMAN: Oh, my God, yes. He lied over 100 times. He left off all those
meetings with the Russian ambassador, with the Russians. He had his
secretary actually fill out his security clearance, which is almost like
saying, kind of turning your back to the importance of this whole security
clearance process.

He had to have sat down with an FBI agent who took him through every single
question. He had to have lied on those questions. This is not a simple
process where you can just have your secretary fill out a form.

MELBER: And, Paul, just briefly, you had written previously about pardons.
Why did you zero in on that, something that we later heard a lot more

ABRAMS: Well, just because it seemed like a way that they would be able to
not face the ultimate consequences of what they may have done. And since
Trump has the pardon power for everyone, but himself, it does have the
opportunity - he does have the opportunity of perhaps -

MELBER: You think he`ll use it?

ABRAMS: I don`t know. Obviously, it has the negative consequence, of
course. And I think I mentioned this in one of the articles is that, at
that point, none of the potential actors, other actors can claim the Fifth
Amendment because they`ve already been granted a pardon for whatever it was
that they did or may have done.

So, it`s a double-edged sword and, of course, Bob Mueller seems to have
gone to Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, to participate in some
of this, so that it`s not so clear that a pardon would, in fact, get them
off from all of what they may have done because that only affects federal.

MELBER: Right. Which goes back to the big question, if you are in a legal
fight with Bob Mueller, do you think he`s thought out more steps ahead than
you, and the answer we are told by many people who work for him is probably

Nick, Aisha, thank you for being here. Nick, I want to check back with
you. Paul, thank you for your time.

Coming up, there`s also new evidence breaking. The Kremlin was using
online organizing for offline real-world events and rallies inside the US.

And later on THE BEAT, an exclusive TV interview with a former Sputnik
employee, who went from working at the White House to being questioned by
the FBI.

And that Trump Voter Fraud Commission is actually hearing arguments about a
gun background check to exercise your voting rights.

And later, ten years of the iPhone, a look at how far we`ve come.


MELBER: Developing news in the Russia probe tonight. New evidence that
Russian efforts at election meddling went beyond bots and trolls and
involved real-life, offline political activity.

Russian operatives organizing political protests in the US during the
campaign, including an August 2016 rally in Twin Falls, Idaho promoted on
Facebook. That`s according to a new “Daily Beast” report.

Now, here`s a Facebook account Russians allegedly used, touting secure
borders. And then, look at this, their event page advocating American
citizens “before refugees.”

And you can note the irony here. Foreign adversaries of America, posing as
Americans, against alleged foreign adversaries.

The page does not indicate many people attended that rally. And Facebook
says it`s been shutting down events like this recently after learning more
about Russian meddling.

But this is the first time the tech company has admitted that its paid ads
were used for these kind of events in America.

The news comes, of course, as Hillary Clinton is saying in a new interview
on her book tour she`s convinced Trump associates colluded with Russia,
while also noting she defers to the evidence that investigators are

And all of this is happening as the evidence there includes Facebook
spreading fake news and profiting from fraudulent Russian events, even if
passively, it has several tech experts today arguing Mark Zuckerberg should
be put on the step.

Joining me now for more is Moveon.Org`s Karine Jean-Pierre; Democratic
Pollster, Jefrey Pollock; and former chief White House ethics lawyer under
President George W. Bush, Richard Painter.

Richard, your view of what it means now that some of these efforts from
Russia were going into actual events, offline, real-world during the

BUSH: Well, this is what a lot of people suspected all along, that Russia
was engaged in a multifaceted effort to interfere in this election and that
a lot of this alt-right movement was fueled not just by white supremacists
at “Breitbart News” who are Americans, but by Russian operatives,
organizing through the Internet.

So, this is a specific example that we`ve uncovered. I`m sure we`ll hear
about more. But this is how the Russians are doing business. And they`ve
been trying to subvert our democracy for 100 years since the 1917 Russian
Revolution, but they`ve only recently discovered the extreme right, the far
right in American political spectrum and, in particular, have tried to take
advantage of our racial tensions.

Our racial diversity in the United States is our great strength, when we
work together, but the Russians, of course, would like us to turn on each
other. And that`s what this whole alt-right movement is about and the
anti-immigrant fervor is. This is definitely their agenda and we fell for

MELBER: Right. And as a movie plot, Karine, if it weren`t so serious, you
could say, oh, these foreigners are posing as Americans to be against
foreigners. There`s a lot to digest there.

It`s also a corporate issue because there is a lot of companies who want to
make money and don`t care about anything else unless they`re forced to,
which is where regulations come from.

Here was Sen. Warner leading this charge today, talking about Facebook.


disappointed that when Facebook came and presented to the Senate intel
staff, they didn`t lay out this incident. I think that is one of the
reasons why we need to bring in Facebook, Twitter and others at some level
of public hearing.

UNIDENITIFED MALE: Has Twitter already briefed you?

WARNER: No, they have not yet. They are coming in shortly.


Look, I think it goes into the long list of things that we already know.
That our 17 agencies told us that, yes, Russia meddled in our elections.

If you ask congressional investigators, whether they are Republican or
Democrat, they will say, yes, Russia interfered in our elections.

So, that`s what we know, right? We know that is the case. The question
now is, did Donald Trump campaign collude with Russia? And we have the
Don, Jr. email, which certainly seems to be the case.

And, honestly, Ari, this is starting to look more and more like Watergate
because the two things keep coming up. The number one is follow the money
and, number two, is what did the president know and when did he know it.

And you have a president who doesn`t want to deal with this issue. So,
now, we`re going to go into 2018, with not really haven`t gotten to the
bottom of this because the president wants to focus on fraudulent
commission on fraud that doesn`t exist.

JEFREY POLLOCK, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: He doesn`t want to deal with it
except that he is obsessed with it, right? So, this is a man who has to
talk about it, whenever he can. He goes to Russia whenever he - meaning,
the subject of Russia whenever he can.

And the thing about the Facebook thing, look, I have no idea what they knew
and what they didn`t know.

But what we know is that the number of voters who are paying attention to
Facebook news - look, in 2013, it was less than 50 percent, who said they
were sort of looking to Facebook for news. It`s now over two-thirds. So,
we`re talking about a huge number of people and voters nationwide, who are
being influenced by what they see on Facebook.

MELBER: Which makes Facebook more like a utility.

POLLOCK: It`s almost universal given the number of people that have it.
For sure.

MELBER: Richard, take a listen to the White House today talking again
going back at Jim Comey.


SANDERS: That`s not the president role. That`s the job of the Department
of Justice and something they should certainly look at.

REPORTER: Does it mean he`d like to see it?

SANDERS: I`m not sure about that specifically. But I think if there`s
ever a moment where we feel someone has broken the law, particularly if
they`re the head of the FBI, I think that`s something that clearly should
be looked at.


MELBER: How do you read that, Richard?

PAINTER: Well, I don`t know what they`re talking about. Jim Comey, I
believe did break the law when he sent that letter about Hillary Clinton a
week before the election, implying that they were reopening an

He should not have sent that letter. He did a lot of damage to the Clinton
campaign, the way that investigation was conducted and the comments he made
about Secretary Clinton the previous summer.

So, I did believe the Hatch Act had been violated. That was investigated
by the Office of Special Counsel at my request. I filed the complaint.
But they dismissed that when he laughed when he was fired from the FBI by
President Trump.

If they want to manufacture a story that somehow he helped Hillary Clinton,
that`s just a joke. I don`t understand what`s going on there because he
did an enormous amount of damage to the Clinton campaign.

And quite frankly, I think he got us into this mess through that letter he
sent the week before the election there, which is really misleading.

MELBER: And, Karine, when Richard Painter says something is a joke, he
doesn`t mean funny ha-ha, he means funny oh-no.

JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, yes. Very seriously. And then just add to what Richard
was saying was that, on the day of the election, there was only one
candidate that was under investigation, and that certainly was not Hillary
Clinton. It was Donald Trump and his associates and what was happening
with Russia. And we didn`t know about it, but we knew about everything

MELBER: Karine, Jeffrey and Richard, thank you very much on this important

Next, we turn to a live report from a different angle. Former Sputnik
employee, the group accused of Russian propaganda, spent hours talking with
the FBI. He`s here for a live exclusive interview on THE BEAT, his first
remarks on TV since that FBI interview.

And we have a report on Trump`s controversial Voter Fraud Commission,
including arguments about a ground check used for guns on voting. That`s
the Trump idea. Stay tuned.


ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: The FBI is now bearing down on Russia backed
entities inside the U.S. like RT and Sputnik and until this week government
scrutiny on them came mostly from U.S. Intelligence Agencies looking
abroad, like the report on Russian meddling, listing Sputnik as a Russian
propaganda effort serving as a platform Kremlin messaging to Russian and
international audiences. So that`s the Intel. But the FBI is different.
It focuses on crime. And today RT says authorities asked them to formally
register as a foreign agent and a failure to do that under the law is
something the FBI can investigate. There are reports it`s already doing
that. Former Sputnik employee Andrew Feinberg says, he was interviewed by
the FBI and a federal prosecutor. You may have heard his name in recent
reports on the Russia case after he broke ties with Sputnik.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the President doesn`t want to do it, is that because
he would rather focus his efforts with Russia on partnering to try to
defeat ISIS?

Haley has noted at the U.N. that any attempt to undermine sanctions that
currently exist because of the annexation of Crimea will remain in place
until that – until that issue is resolved.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But why does sending weapons to Ukraine have anything
to do with sanctions?

SPICER: I`m not – right, I`m not going to get into the President`s
negotiating strategy

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Andrew Feinberg who says that his supervisors regularly
would say, Moscow wants this or Moscow wants that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Russian media organizations like RT and Sputnik
spreading false hoods and negative Hillary Clinton stuff.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: The Russian state owned news site Sputnik actually
pressured its own White House Correspondent to advance this fake centric
story. And when he refused, he was fired.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Andrew Feinberg, the former White House Correspondent
for Sputnik, a Russia known wire, radio and digital news service, took to
Twitter a few days ago and said he`s quitting. He`s leaving. He said, “it
seems Sputnik is not happy with real journalists. He`d rather have actual
propagandist operate anonymously.


MELBER: That was Feinberg`s view after leaving in June. And there is a
debate to be held about propaganda. But then the FBI contacted him raising
a debate about the law. Feinberg spoke to them for two hours, handed over
a thumb drive with internal e-mails from Sputnik and he detailed how he got
directions to ask questions in that White House Briefing Room. Now his
exchanges with the White House are under new scrutiny. At the time, U.S.
Intel had publicly criticized Sputnik. Experts knew what their links to
the Kremlin. But the White House was still treating them and him in the
Briefing Room like a legit news organization. Most viewers would have no
idea that entity was actually doing propaganda and that it now, we can say
is under FBI scrutiny.

Now, Sputnik says it let Feinberg go for his performance and argues all of
this scrutiny actually undermines press freedom. Feinberg though says that
faced tension on the job whenever he tried to be independent, and he came
to conclude Sputnik was pure Kremlin propaganda. Now, Yahoo! first
reported this week about the FBI`s scrutiny and its questioning of Feinberg
who is here today for his first T.V. interview since speaking to the FBI.


MELBER: Andrew, thanks for joining me.

having me, Ari.

MELBER: What did the FBI want to know from you?

FEINBERG: They wanted to know a lot about internal processes, who I
reported to, who paid me, what my day was like. You know, where I got
instructions on what to cover, how to cover it. That sort of thing. It
was you know, a lot of internal processes like I said. And a lot of it
stemmed from the article in Politico a few weeks back. And you know, a lot
of the issues we cover I discussed in that article but this was a lot more
detailed of a conversation.

MELBER: The FBI wanted to know from you who was calling the shots at
Sputnik and whether it went back to the Kremlin?

FEINBERG: Yes. And you know, I can`t say where exactly the instructions
came from before they got to me. They came to me from my editors who were
with exceptions, Russian, and you know, they would come to me and you know,
they would say Moscow wants this, Moscow wants that. And you know, I don`t
know if they were speaking to people in the Kremlin, but even if they were
speaking to people back at the home office in Moscow, you know, the Sputnik
and RT parent company gets their instructions from the Kremlin.

MELBER: Before the 2016 hacking, there has never been a big government
push to make Sputnik, your former employer register as a foreign agent.
And viewers recall, of course, that`s what Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn
ultimately were pressured to doing. Did this new interview you had with
the FBI suggest they`re looking at making Sputnik potentially register as a
foreign agent? Did they saw – show an interest in that?

FEINBERG: Absolutely. That was the purpose if the interview. That`s what
they`re looking at. They are interested in determining whether or –
whether or not Sputnik should be registering under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act as foreign propaganda. And there is a carve out in that
act for what they (INAUDIBLE) calls bonafide news agencies. But based on
my experience there, I would argue that Sputnik is not functioning as a
bona fide news agency.

MELBER: Right. And that`s the big question and you`re one of the – one
of the handful of people who spoke it out about that at the time where the
first amendment principles are big because there are good reason why the
government shouldn`t mess with real journalist. But you`ve raised the
question, are they real journalists? Here`s some other former Sputnik and
RT employees speaking out about the same thing.


LIZ WAHL, RT CORRESPONDENT: Personally, I cannot be a part of network
funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin.
I`m proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth and that
is why after this newscast, I`m resigning.

SARA FIRTH, RT LONDON CORRESPONDENT: What RT does is that it very much
marries the Kremlin line. So you know, whatever they`re putting out, we`re
kind of (INAUDIBLE) for those lies, basically.


MELBER: Those former employees like yourself are certainly sharing
experience which is helpful to the public records. The flip side is the
question to you or them, why didn`t you realize this was going in? Why was
it such a surprise that an entity with public financial backing of the
Kremlin would be like this?

FEINBERG: That`s a good question. And you know, I don`t think I was naive
when I took job. I knew that Sputnik was Russian government backed. I
went in to interview for the job. You know, they asked me questions. I
asked questions and they made certain he assurances. They told me that I
would have the editorial independence and the ability to work in the same
manner that you know, I would work at any other journalism organization.
And those promises turned out to be false. But you know, I`m not going to
call someone I don`t know a liar without giving him a chance to prove
himself one.

MELBER: And final question is the big question. From your time there and
what you`ve learned, do you think these Kremlin backed organizations and
the Russian government did have agreements, collusion or arrangements with
any Trump officials?

FEINBERG: I can`t speak to that. What I tell you is that many of the most
popular, you know, articles about things like WikiLeaks and Pizzagate and
other conspiracy theories were prominently featured on the Sputnik Web
site. (INAUDIBLE) I worked for the news wire division which is a separate
part of the office but you know, they were featured very prominently on the
Sputnik Web site and you know, they get picked up by other American
outlets. InfoWars, Breitbart –

MELBER: By right wing outlets?

FEINBERG: Yes, right wing outlets. And Sputnik functions as you know,
part of this right wing media ecosystem. And there`s a big difference
between these sites that are run by Americans, employ Americans, exercising
their right to freedom of speech and a news site funded by a foreign
government with the express purpose of not reporting the news but
influencing opinion. And when the money for that site comes from a foreign
government, then it`s foreign propaganda, not news.

MELBER: Right. It`s important, it`s fascinating and we are seeing the
lines the journalistic and legal lines changing under pressure here.
Obviously, the FBI interested. I appreciate you taking some time to tell
us about your experience and your discussions with them Andrew Feinberg.a

FEINBERG: Thank you.

MELBER: Ahead, could you (INAUDIBLE) to pass a gun background check to
vote? Trump`s voter fraud commission hearing about that today and is Trump
taking the cyber threat seriously? We`re going to dig into Equifax and
what you need to know about your own Social Security Numbers ahead.



CROWD: Hey, hey, ho, ho, (INAUDIBLE) has got to go!


MELBER: Protesters say outside the first meeting of Trump`s the voter
fraud panel in New Hampshire, a state where Trump wrongly claimed there was
widespread he voter fraud. The Commissioner Chair, not even pretending to
wait to gather evidence and said using a partisan outlet, Breitbart to make
the unfounded claim that out of state voters changed the outcome of a
Senate Race. Fact checkers noted that`s not true. Kobach offers get
evidence, so do Fact Checks Matter? Well, apparently they do. Today he
began to second-guess his words.


column, I struggled with the word, what verb to use. And (INAUDIBLE) the
columnist said, it appears that nonresidents may have tipped the results.
And I`m still wondering if that was the right word.


MELBER: Wonder away. Today the Commission is hearing a proposal
apparently design to treat people`s right to vote peacefully as if it were
as dangerous as weapon. A proposal to make people pass gun background
checks before you`re allowed to vote.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Think about applying a background check system that we
use for purchasing guns, the NICS for voting. And you know, democrats have
long been concerned about voter suppression and – but they`ve also long
lauded the background check on guns.


MELBER: Joining me now, a Democratic Critic of this voting panel, Alison
Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky Secretary of State. If we can, let`s put aside
some of the crazy, let me just ask you, what do you believe is the true
purpose of this commission?

great to be with you tonight. The Emmys are this weekend and the plot for
this horror film has already been written, voter suppression. Today they
were merrily looking for a cast of actors who will help them write the
fiction, not facts that they`re searching for. And my hope is that the
American tax payer dollars won`t be used to subsidize this largest national
voter suppression effort anymore.

MELBER: Does that make Donald Trump the show runner, the EPE? Where does
he fit into the enemy analogy?

GRIMES: Well, he does always love to produce a good you know, reality T.V.
show. That fact is that our Democracy, our election system, the ballot box
is our greatest equalizer. And when we start talking about ways to keep
people from the ballot box, we`re not addressing what`s the most pressing
concern of our time, and that`s that over 40 percent of Americans aren`t
participating in our elections. There`s a fundamental difference between
my philosophy and the philosophy that you saw of this sham voter
suppression commission today. They want fewer people to participate. I
think that democracy is best when all eligible Americans are able to have
their voice heard.

MELBER: Do you think Donald Trump has told the truth about voting in the
2016 election?

GRIMES: Well, I think when you are as a candidate talking about a system
being rigged, and then you continue with such dangerous and reckless
rhetoric that every party has denounced that millions voted legally in the
last election just to sanctify your own ego for losing the popular vote,
you are playing a hard and fast loose game with our democracy. One that
myself and thousands of other elections administrators across this nation
are standing up against in voicing our opposition not only to the reckless
demand of voters personal information, their Social Security Number, their
Registration Number, voting history.

But to the discussions that are going on today, the need to have voter
background checks, or to nullify the 26th Amendment, making it harder for
youth, minorities to participate in our elections. That`s not the
direction we need to go and there have been prior administrations that have
come forth with great recommendations. That`s what we should be focusing
on, not the tactic of making the ballot box harder for people to actually
have their voice heard.

MELBER: Understood. Secretary, stay with me. I want to bring in Leah
Wright Rigueur, a Historian Professor from the Harvard Kennedy School of
Government. Professor, throughout American history, when we talk about
access to the ballot, we end up talking about discrimination. How do you
view this commission and what Secretary Grimes was saying?

PROFESSOR: Sure. So I think the commission was pretty open about the fact
they want less people to vote. And I think they`ve been a little less
clear but it is apparent they want certain people, certain people to have
less power at the ballot box. So they`ve directly been targeting you know,
college students, minorities, people of color, people who look like they
shouldn`t belong in the voting booth. And I think this opens up all kinds
of problems, all kinds cans of worms. I think it`s a little bit
disingenuous to call these things voter I.D. laws. Instead what we should
cause them are either voter intimidation laws, voter suppression laws or
voter depression laws in general.

MELBER: That`s very interesting. Let me put your point to the Secretary.
Do you think some of this proposal like this gun back ground idea that came
up today, are those in your view voter suppression ideas?

GRIMES: They are. I couldn`t agree with the Professor more. We`re
already seeing an impact, a negative impact of this commission on voter
registration rolls across the nation. People actually de-rolling, removing
their name from the voter registration roll because they didn`t want their
information residing, their personal information, Social Security Numbers,
voting history, residing in the White House under Donald Trump. We need to
be moving forward with Election administration, not backward. The days of
poll tests, owning property, back ground checks. That`s not the direct we
need to go. And what we`re talking about the greatest equalizer in our
democracy, our ballot box.

MELBER: Professor, do you think that states should continue to push back?
One political idea from Governor Howard Dean, a former Governor was that
New Hampshire should actually maybe lose its special first of the nation
status if it keeps being sort of a part of this effort.

RIGUEUR: So, I think what you`re going to continue to see is states across
the country just continue to push back at the Trump administration and at
this kind of voter fraud commission. And the interesting thing here too is
that the pushback is coming not just from Democrats who I think that we
might expect but it`s also coming from a handful of Republicans. And it`s
causing some kind of interesting, a little interesting consternation
amongst them. In part because I think, they recognize that you know, it`s
a constitutional right to vote. So we should be helping people to vote and
helping more and more people to get to the ballot box. We`re also seeing
courts beginning to push back rather strongly at the determination or these
various kinds of laws that have been put into place. So that`s a thing to
watch right now.

MELBER: Secretary Grimes, I don`t know if you heard Jay-Z`s new album, but
he says what`s better than one billionaire, two. And here today, what`s
better than one voting expert, two. You guys have taught us a lot so
thanks for joining.

GRIMES: Thank you very much, Ari, great to be with you.

MELBER: Fantastic. I appreciate it. We`ll be back with a hack that may
have exposed the private information of half of America.



Russia but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people.
It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.


MELBER: That was Donald Trump speculating on who might have done election
hacking other than Russia. U.S. Intel says he was wrong. And Trump`s lax
approach to cyber security not confined to the Russia scandal. His hotel
company failed to even tell its own customers after hackers stole credit
card and personal info from Trump Hotel computers. Last year, Trump`s
company paid out a settlement with the New York Attorney General over the
lapse. Trump officials “tried to cover up the first cyber-attack, did
nothing to fix the vulnerabilities,” notes the Huffington Post reports.
And then they were defenseless when the hackers struck a second time. And
that Trump Hotel approach to cyber security clearly as other corporate
followers like Equifax which is now stumbling through one of the largest
financial hacks in history, 143 million Americans.

To put that in context, if you are watching this program with one other
person, odds are that hackers breached one of your Social Security Numbers
in this new hack. So what can you do about it? Well, people who want to
check whether they were victims on Equifax`s site were told at first that
in order to find out, they may have to waive their right to sue over this.
The company then later said that would not apply to the cyber security
incident, quite a scorched earth approach to consumer protection. One of
the principles President Obama forced into law by creating the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and its first Nominee Elizabeth Warren. Of
course, you may remember, Republicans filibustered her so she went on to
win a Senate seat instead. An example of an old cliche, obstruct consumer
protection too much and you might end up getting the nation`s leading
consumer protection advocate a promotion.

Now, Democrat Dick Durbin says, this shows the need for regulation with
Equifax but Trump is going in the opposite direction. He is trying to gut
that same consumer protection bureau cutting it $6.8 billion over the next
decade, a reduction of 93 percent. Some regulatory issues are complex.
This isn`t one of them. When politicians make it easier for companies to
sell your personal information and lose your Social Security Number,
they`re not on the consumer`s side and they`re certainly not draining the


TRUMP: It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. We`re going to
drain the swamp and we are going to drain the swamp. Drain the swamp.




STEVE JOBS, APPLE CEO: Today, today apple is going to reinvent the phone,
and here it is.


MELBER: And they did. Steve Jobs introducing the first iPhone exactly ten
years ago and understand that revolution, you have to remember how cell
phones began.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put the whole world in your hand with Radio Shack`s new
portable cellar phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Finding a phone in a car isn`t that unusual anymore
except when it leaves the car for greener pastures, the high seats or a
leisurely lunch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eventually, seeing people using cellular phones may
seem as common places, someone checking time on an electronic watch
figuring on an electronic calculator or programming on an electronic


MELBER: Well someday this new iPhone X unveiled today could seem as
primitive as these old flip phones. That does it for our show. I`ll see
you back tomorrow 6:00 p.m. Eastern. “HARDBALL” starts now.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: The web tightens. 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